Case Number: BC545697 Hearing Date: March 19, 2018 Dept: 47

David Penilla, et al. v. Westmont Corporation d/b/a Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs David Penilla, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Westmont Corporation d/b/a Wildwood Mobile Home Country Club, Mark Rutherford, Jo Davenport, and Jose Hernandez

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs are residents of a mobile home park. Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants have failed to maintain the common areas. Plaintiffs also allege a series of unrelated acts of rudeness and intimidation by various Defendants as well as refusal to approve buyers of Plaintiffs’ mobile homes.

Plaintiffs David Penilla, et al. move for leave to file a sixth amended complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs David Penilla, et al.’s motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion For Leave To File Sixth Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s counsel made no effort to comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(b), which states:

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(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.

In this regard, the court will not consider the Declaration of Steven H. Haney submitted for the first time in reply. There is no excuse for failing to comply with the requirement set forth in CRC Rule 3.1324 with the moving papers. “Points raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered.” (Citation omitted.)” Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359 n.2. See also WorldMark, The Club v. Wyndham Resort Development Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1030: “Arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief are untimely and may be disregarded.

The Court also notes Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs are disregarding the parties’ stipulation to dismiss with prejudice certain allegations, claims and causes of action from the Fifth Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff has already filed six versions of the complaint. There is no reason to force Defendants to go through another round of law and motion simply because Plaintiffs wish to add the minor changes specified at Page 3:15-22 of the memorandum of points and authorities.

The motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint is DENIED.

Defendants to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court