Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 36

Tentative Ruling

As a threshold matter, the Court STRIKES the March 14, 2024 order granting Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file his proposed first amended complaint as it was entered in error and conflicts with the Court’s minute order entered on the same day.

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

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint contains a number of deficiencies, which warrants denial of the motion. Additionally, the Court notes that “[p]ro. per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys,” and therefore, Plaintiff must comply with the applicable Rules of Court and provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

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. 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. Plaintiff also fails to state where the proposed allegations will be added or deleted by page, paragraph, and line number as required by Rule 3.1324(a). 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,

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 36

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 the parties’ other arguments.

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.)

NOTICE:

This tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its request for hearing.

The parties may appear remotely through the use of Zoom. The parties may join the Zoom session by audio and/or video through the link/telephone number which can be obtained by contacting the clerk of the court at dept36@saccourt.ca.gov or (916) 874- 7661 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the scheduled hearing. In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 30 minutes per side.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 06/13/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 36

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