Jacob Kern vs. Lindsey San Martin

34-2022-00315573-CU-IC-GDS: Jacob Kern vs. Lindsey San Martin - Supervisor Home Owner Claims - CSAA 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

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.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event Defendant appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B). Plaintiff Jacob Kern’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to amend his complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Background

Plaintiff brings this action in pro per against Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange (“CSAA”) premised on an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff submitted a claim to CSAA regarding roof damage his home sustained during a windstorm. CSAA informed him that the cost of repair would be less than his $2,500 deductible. Plaintiff maintained his policy entitled him to a new roof, but CSAA declined to cover the cost of replacement.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff filed a complaint on February 16, 2022, asserting a single cause of action against CSAA for breach of contract.

The Court heard Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on June 20, 2024. In its order, the Court noted the complaint did not contain any cause of action for bad faith and that the Court would not address the merits of such a claim as “[t]he pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment.”

Trial in this matter was originally scheduled for July 22, 2024. Plaintiff failed to appear and the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. On November 27, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal, over Defendant's objection, and the action was rescheduled for trial on April 28, 2025 based on Plaintiff's representations regarding technical difficulties that prevented him from appearing remotely for the trial.

Plaintiff now moves for permission to amend his complaint to include an additional cause of action for bad faith insurance practices based on newly discovered evidence.

Defendant opposes, arguing the motion should be denied because it is procedurally deficient in a number of ways, Plaintiff failed to diligently to seek permission to amend his complaint, and because Defendant will prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff to amend to add a new claim on the eve of trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00315573-CU-IC-GDS: Jacob Kern vs. Lindsey San Martin - Supervisor Home Owner Claims - CSAA 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

Discussion

It is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments to the operative pleading at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163; see Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19-20.) However, courts should not permit amendment “where it would not serve any useful purpose.” (Maple Properties v. Harris (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 997, 1012.)

A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where both “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice is shown.” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1998) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487- 488 [leave to amend made on the eve of trial properly denied in the trial court's discretion where the new cause of action would have greatly expanded the case after the “trial date was set, the jury [was] about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses [had] blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery”).) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.” (Weil & Brown, Cal.

Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024 update) ¶ 6:656 [citations omitted]; accord Cal. Judges Benchbook, Civ. Proceedings - Before Trial (2022) § 12.171.)

The motion is DENIED, on several grounds.

Preliminarily, the Court notes Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear the instant motion. The Court indicated it would “conditionally GRANT [Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date on this motion] provided Plaintiff files/serves its moving papers immediately, i.e., no later than March 21, 2025. This order is not effective if Plaintiff fails to do so.” Plaintiff failed to file or serve the moving papers until March 24, 2025. Accordingly, the Court could drop this hearing from calendar on this basis alone.

Second, the moving papers are defective pursuant to the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1324, which specifically provides that in moving to amend a complaint, the plaintiff must provide all of the following information in a supporting declaration: “(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.” (CRC, Rule 3.1324(b).) No declaration is included with the moving papers. Nor is the mandatory copy of Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleading included. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(1).)

Third, Plaintiff fails to provide any credible basis for the delay in seeking this amendment. It was clear by June 2024 that a bad faith claim was not alleged in the operative complaint based on the Court’s statement that it was not addressing such a claim since “the pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment.” Trial was set in this case for July 22,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00315573-CU-IC-GDS: Jacob Kern vs. Lindsey San Martin - Supervisor Home Owner Claims - CSAA 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 53

2024 and was only reset after Plaintiff missed the original trial date and the Court granted relief from dismissal. While Plaintiff conclusorily asserts that the proposed new claim “was a theory consistently pursued through discovery and pretrial litigation,” Plaintiff provides no basis for why a motion to amend to add this cause of action was not filed until March 24, 2025 when trial is currently set for April 28, 2025.

Finally, the Court finds that prejudice would result from the addition of a new theory of liability— which includes different elements and, according to Defendant, a different measure of damages. Specifically, the Court finds that should the present motion be granted, doing so will effectively render this action no longer “at issue” and consequently, 'not ripe' by the time of the trial date, which at the time of the hearing on this matter, will be two weeks away. Leave to amend would also lead to additional costs of preparation.

Accordingly, for all the reasons set forth above, the present motion to amend is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.