MR. JEFFERY MARSHALL vs. SHERRI GRIJALVA; ET AL.
Motion by Plaintiff for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
Case No. CU24-06535
Motion by Plaintiff for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint
CRC 3.1113(a) gives the court discretion to construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion is not meritorious and cause for its denial.
Second, the motion failed to provide a proposed second amended complaint, nor to identify by declaration the effects of the changes, nor to identify the additions and deletions being made from the currently operative complaint (the first amended complaint). CRC 3.1324.
Third, there is no proof of service, to confirm service of the motion papers at least 16 court days prior to hearing, as required by C.C.P. §1005(b).
This motion is denied, for each and every one of these reasons.
YVONNE GARCIA; ET AL. vs. PRIME ASCOT, LP
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”