Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that two separate orders were entered (one of them in error) on March 14, 2024, both regarding Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file his proposed first amended complaint. The March 14, 2024 minute order (prepared by the Court) by Judge Julie Yap was properly entered. In that order, the Court continued various hearings on pending motions to May 9, 2024. While that order is clear, a second, separate order regarding the same application was erroneously entered on the same date. That order was prepared by Plaintiff and conflicts with the order prepared by the Court. Given that the second March 14, 2024 order (prepared by Plaintiff) was entered in error, it is hereby STRICKEN.

Plaintiff Delma Jrmar Jefferson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to amend complaint is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s motion is deficient in several respects. First, the notice of motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, which require Plaintiff to state the grounds of the motion in the notice of motion. Here, Plaintiff’s notice states that he is moving for leave to amend pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, which provides for the enforcement of settlement agreements. However, Plaintiff later states, in sections of his filing that do not appear to be his notice of motion, that he is moving pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, which provides for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint, and section 472a, which relates to amendments made after a demurrer or motion to strike.

None of these sections apply here. For instance, section 664.6 does not relate to or allow leave to amend a pleading, section 426.50 has no application here as no compulsory crosscomplaint is at issue, and section 472a does not apply because the proposed amended complaint is not made pursuant to the Court’s order on any demurrer or motion to strike. Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice of the grounds of his motion and relevant legal authority is a sufficient basis on which to deny the motion.

Second, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3), which requires the motion to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading. Plaintiff’s declaration states the proposed first amended complaint is attached as Exhibit A. However, Plaintiff did not file any exhibits to his declaration. Although Plaintiff generally describes which allegations he would like to add, he also fails to state where the proposed allegations will be added by page, paragraph, and line number.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with rule 3.1324 is also grounds to deny the motion.

Third, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s moving papers do not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(b), in that the separate documents are combined into a single pleading, but Plaintiff has not specified the items separately in the caption. It is not clear to the Court whether Plaintiff’s motion includes a separate notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities, since it appears that Plaintiff makes substantive arguments before the portion of the document titled “memorandum of points and authorities,” which begins on page 21. To the extent Plaintiff’s motion begins on page 3, where he begins making substantive arguments, instead of page 21, Plaintiff’s moving papers also fail to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, which limits opening memorandum to 15 pages.

Finally, Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint seeks to state new causes of action against Defendants Samuel Dana and Denise McCarney (“Defendants”). Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that all claims against them were settled during a private mediation that occurred on November 7, 2023. These new causes of action and allegations against Defendants are improper because the Court has granted Defendants’ concurrent motion to enforce the settlement agreement and to dismiss the action against them.

Having denied the motion for the reasons stated above, the Court need not address other arguments raised in the parties’ briefs.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)