RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Jose A. Rodriguez Chavero (Plaintiff) CRS# 801091351725 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 09/03/2026 Mark Fickes

The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default filed by Jose A. Rodriguez Chavero on 06/24/2026 is Denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Jose A. Rodriguez Chavero (“Rodriguez Chavero”) filed this breach-of-contract action on September 5, 2025, seeking storage fees for Defendant and Cross- Complainant Hector Daniel Clark’s (“Clark”) 1994 Mazda RX-7. The original complaint rests on a breach theory arising from a 2011 transaction. On March 19, 2026, Clark, appearing in propria persona, moved to dismiss the complaint under Business and Professions Code section 7031, contending that Rodriguez Chavero was not a licensed automotive repair dealer in 2011.

Through retained counsel, Rodriguez Chavero filed the present motion on June 8, 2026, seeking leave under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), to amend his breach-ofcontract cause of action to allege a separate contract formed in 2021, after he became a licensed automotive repair dealer, and to add causes of action for common counts and for an intentional tort of trespass to land. The motion is supported by counsel's declaration and attaches a clean copy of the original complaint and an annotated, strikethrough copy of the proposed amended pleading. The motion represents that each added and amended claim arises from the same set of facts alleged in the original complaint. Clark has not opposed the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for leave to amend a pleading before trial is governed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Subdivision (a) requires the motion to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading, serially numbered, and to state what allegations are proposed to be deleted and added, and where, "by page, paragraph, and line number." Subdivision (b) requires a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), (b).)

The court may allow amendment of a pleading "in furtherance of justice." (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also id., § 576.) Leave to amend is directed to the trial court's sound discretion, but "the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment," and "[t]he policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified." (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Leave should be denied on futility grounds "only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff's claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no 25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Jose A.

Rodriguez Chavero (Plaintiff) CRS# 801091351725 in Department 518 amendment would change the result." (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

The question is whether the Court should grant leave to amend even though the motion does not fully comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. For the reasons that follow, the procedural defects do not bar relief, and leave is granted.

A. The Motion Does Not Fully Comply with Rule 3.1324

The Court agrees that the motion is procedurally deficient in several respects. First, although the motion attaches the proposed amended pleading, it does not state, in the motion itself and by page, paragraph, and line number, which allegations are to be added and which deleted, as rule 3.1324(a) requires; the reader must reconstruct the changes from the strikethrough exhibit. Second, the supporting declaration does not state when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, as rule 3.1324(b)(3) requires.

Third, the declaration does not state the reasons the request for amendment was not made earlier, as rule 3.1324(b)(4) requires. The declaration does, however, state the effect of the amendment and why it is necessary and proper, satisfying rule 3.1324(b)(1) and (2). The Court also notes that the moving papers are internally inconsistent in describing the new claims and in reciting the hearing date and the governing statute.

B. The Defects Do Not Require Denial

Noncompliance with rule 3.1324 is not jurisdictional and does not compel denial. A defect of this kind is a "technical defect" that, "if brought to plaintiffs' attention, could have been easily remedied," and an opposing party who does not raise it forfeits the objection. (Howard, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1429.) Here Clark has not opposed the motion and thus has raised no objection to its form. The strong policy favoring amendment counsels resolving the doubt in favor of allowing the amendment rather than denying leave on a curable formality. (Id. at p. 1428.) The Court elects to reach the merits rather than deny on procedural grounds.

C. Leave to Amend Is Warranted on the Merits

The dispositive consideration is prejudice, and none appears. "[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment," and "it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts." (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) The proposed amendments arise from the same facts already pleaded in the original complaint: the same vehicle, the same storage dispute, and the same course of dealing between the parties. The motion is unopposed, so Clark asserts no prejudice, and no trial date has been set. Any concern about the timing of the amendment is modest: the motion followed within months of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Jose A. Rodriguez Chavero (Plaintiff) CRS# 801091351725 in Department 518 discovery responses that prompted the change in theory, and the pre-trial, unopposed posture is far removed from the trial-stage amendments that justify denial for delay.

Nor is the proposed amendment futile. The 2021 breach-of-contract theory and the added claims are not so clearly barred that amendment would be an idle act; their legal sufficiency, if challenged, is properly tested by demurrer rather than pre-judged on this motion. (Howard, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1428.) Because no prejudice is shown and the amendment is not futile, the liberal policy governing amendment controls, and leave is granted.

CONCLUSION

The motion is procedurally deficient under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, but the defects are curable, unopposed, and non-prejudicial, and the strong policy favoring amendment governs. Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED notwithstanding the procedural defects in the moving papers.

2. Plaintiff shall separately file and serve the First Amended Complaint, in a form that complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), within 10 days of the date of this Order.

3. Defendant shall respond to the First Amended Complaint within the time allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 471.5.

CASE MANAGEMENT AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

The Court makes the following observations and directions, which apply to all further proceedings in this matter. This case has been marked by motion practice disproportionate to the issues and the amount in controversy, including the several motions the Court has now resolved and motions previously denied. The Court finds that the litigation has become over-litigated and unduly burdensome, and that more meaningful, good-faith meet-and-confer efforts would likely reduce the motion practice going forward. Now that both parties are represented by counsel, the Court expects counsel and the parties to act reasonably, to cooperate in the discovery process, and to resolve disputes without court intervention wherever possible.

To that end, the Court orders as follows:

1. All further meet-and-confer efforts required by statute or rule shall be conducted by video conference (for example, Zoom or a similar platform) and shall be recorded. The Court will not consider any motion for which a meet-and-confer effort is a prerequisite unless the moving papers are accompanied by a declaration attesting to that effort.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Jose A. Rodriguez Chavero (Plaintiff) CRS# 801091351725 in Department 518 2. For any further motion for which meet-and-confer is required, if a party contests the Court's tentative ruling, both counsel and the parties themselves shall appear in person, and not remotely, at the hearing on that motion. They shall also bring a copy of the meet-and-confer efforts.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Jose A. Rodriguez Chavero (Plaintiff) CRS# 801091351725 in Department 518 +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)