Case Number: KC066731    Hearing Date: August 12, 2014    Dept: J

Re: Antonio Geluz, et al. v. Best Dance Studios, et al. (KC066731)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Antonio Geluz and Erlinda Aquino

Respondents: No timely opposition filed

POS: Moving OK

Plaintiff Antonio Geluz, in propria persona, commenced this action on 3/14/14, asserting causes of action for:

1. Violation of Civil Rights (42 USC 1983)
2. Assault on Process Server
3. Accomplice Liability
4. False Reporting to Sheriff
5. Fraud
6. Negligence
7. Violation of ADA
8. Misrepresentation of Licensing and Permits
9. Operating Dance Studio without License as Banquet Facility
10. Injunctive relief
11. Declaratory relief

On 4/2/14, Plaintiff amended once as a matter of right, filing a Verified First Amended Complaint, that added a new Plaintiff and five new causes of action as follows:

1. Violation of Civil Rights (42 USC 1983)
2. Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
3. Assault on Process Server
4. Accomplice Liability
5. False Reporting to Sheriff
6. Fraud
7. IIED
8. Defamation
9. Negligence
10. Deceptive and Misleading Advertising Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17529.5
11. Violation of ADA Regulations
12. Civil RICO
13. Misrepresentation of Licensing and Permits
14. Operating Dance Studio without License as Banquet Facility
15. Injunctive Relief
16. Declaratory Relief

On 4/11/14, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Complaint, without leave of court, adding two new causes of action as follows:

1. Violation of Civil Rights (42 USC 1983)
2. Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
3. Assault on Process Server
4. Accomplice Liability
5. False Reporting to Sheriff
6. Fraud
7. IIED
8. Defamation
9. Negligence
10. Deceptive and Misleading Advertising Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17529.5
11. Violation of ADA Regulations
12. Civil RICO
13. Misrepresentation of Licensing and Permits
14. Operating Dance Studio without License as Banquet Facility
15. Money Had and Received, Equitable Lien
16. Breach of Contract
17. Injunctive Relief
18. Declaratory Relief

On 6/16/14, Defendants’ motion to strike entire second amended complaint, on the grounds that it was filed without leave of court, was granted.

The Case Management Conference is set for 8/12/14.

Plaintiffs Antonio Geluz and Erlinda Aquino (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move the court for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) pursuant to CCP §§ 473 and 576 on the grounds that TAC is in furtherance of justice.

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (CCP § 473(a)(1); and see CCP § 576.)

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion to amend a pleading specifying the following: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1324(a) and (b). Thus, the motion is denied.