Case Number: BC631483 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 98

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOE LUIS WORTHAM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: BC631483

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dept. 98

1:30 p.m.

January 16, 2018

On August 23, 2016, Plaintiff Joe Luis Wortham (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), County of Los Angeles, and City of Los Angeles for government liability and negligence relating to a February 26, 2016 bus versus bicycle accident.

On January 17, 2017, LACMTA filed its Answer and a Motion to Strike. (Declaration of Eitan Yehoshua, ¶ 4; Exh. B.) On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a stipulation that Plaintiff would strike certain portions of the Complaint, and the motion to strike was taken off calendar. (Yehoshua Decl., ¶ 5; Declaration of Mark J. Giannamore, ¶ 5.) On August 22, 2017, without stipulation or seeking leave of the court, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Yehoshua Decl., ¶ 6; Giannamore Decl., ¶ 7.) LACMTA now moves to strike Plaintiff’s entire FAC.

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The Court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a), (b).)

A plaintiff may amend his or her pleading once without leave of the court, at any time before an answer or demurrer is filed. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 472.) Plaintiff concedes that his FAC was not filed in conformity with the laws of this state and the Court may strike the entire pleading. However, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which parallels the FAC and does not add new or different theories of liability or parties. The SAC will delete paragraph 3 of the prayer and will clarify certain allegations. (Giannamore Decl., ¶¶ 8, 9.)

While the Court has discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to file a SAC, the Court concludes this Motion to Strike is the improper method to do so, and Plaintiff’s request is procedurally deficient.

A motion seeking leave to amend must include: (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) a statement of allegations in the previous pleading that are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; (3) a statement of allegations proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located; and (4) a supporting declaration stating the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, what facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.)

Plaintiff’s request does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Therefore, the Court does not have the required information to consider Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a SAC. Plaintiff must bring a separate motion in compliance with the California Rules of Court if he seeks leave to file a SAC.

In light of the foregoing, the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s FAC is GRANTED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT98@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 16th day of January 2018

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court