Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-to-file-substitute-or-corrected-brief-259
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 02:19:37
Document Index: 775911587

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 436', '§436', '§436', '§128', '§436', '§ 581', '§ 436', '§ 436', '§526', '§ 436', '§ 581', '§ 472', '§ 473']

Substitute or Corrected Brief
How to File a Substitute or Corrected Brief?
“Corrected” is used to refer to a brief or pleading that had an error or defect and has since been amended. For example, if a current pleading with a defect will be deemed stricken under CCP § 436, the newly filed and amended pleading could be termed “corrected.”
As a general rule, leave to amend is liberally granted. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 938–939; Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428).
Corrected for Irrelevant, False, or Improper Matters or Allegations in a Pleading
The court may strike out irrelevant, false, or improper matters or allegations, and a plaintiff could seek leave to amend the stricken pleading. Code Civ. Proc. §436(a).
Corrected for Nonconforming Format
The court may strike a pleading in whole or in part that is not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. Code Civ. Proc. §436(b). Filing frivolous pleadings before the Court may be subject to sanctions under Code of Civ. Proc. §§128.5 & 128.7, and such nonconforming pleadings may be stricken by the Court’s own motion pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §436.
Some courts require the plaintiff to file a noticed motion for leave (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613). Others courts have held that the court has discretion to accept the amended pleading without a noticed motion. (Harlan v. Department of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 873).
Moving to Strike a Corrected Pleading
Filed Without Leave
Any pleading filed without leave of Court is subject to a motion to strike, either by the defendant or on the Court's own motion. (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 603, 612). The Court, by virtue of its inherent power to prevent abuse of its processes, may strike an amended complaint "filed in disregard of established procedural processes," and may strike an amended pleading "because no request for permission to amend was sought." (Id. at 613).
Defendants may move both to strike a late-filed amended complaint and dismiss the action concurrently, but the Court may deny a motion to dismiss where plaintiff furnishes a sufficient excuse for the delay. (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 614; Contreras v. Blue Cross of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 945, 948).
Effects of Delaying Correction and Failing to Correct
Prejudicial Delay in Correcting
If the party proposing the amendment delayed in offering it, and this delay prejudiced the opposing party, the court has discretion to deny leave to file it. (Hirsa v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see Bedolla v. Logan Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 136 (unexplained delay in presenting proposed amendment is “itself a significant factor to uphold the trial court's denial of the amendment”); Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939–940 (“even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial”); Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564–565 (delay is insufficient to deny leave to amend unless it was prejudicial)).
Under CCP § 581(f)(2), “The court may dismiss the complaint as to [a] defendant when: . . . Except where Section 597 applies, after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party moves for dismissal.” Furthermore, “failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed by the court subjected any subsequently filed pleading to a motion to strike, either by defendants or on the court's own motion.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613).
Relief under CCP § 436
Code of Civil Procedure § 436 provides as follows:
Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.
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.
“Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,’ the court has discretion to allow relief from a ‘judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against’ a party or his or her attorney.
Under the mandatory relief provision, upon a showing by attorney declaration of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,’ the court shall vacate any ‘resulting default judgment or dismissal entered.’” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 615–616). Mandatory relief only extends to vacating a default which will result in the entry of a default judgment, a default judgment, or an entered dismissal.
Useful Rulings on Motion to File Substitute or Corrected Brief
ANTHONY SIRACUSA VS BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS
TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 11 Date: 1/18/19 Case No: EC 069238 Case Name: Anthony Siracusa v. Barrett Daffin Frappier PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [CCP §526] Moving Party: Plaintiff Anthony Siracusa Responding Party: Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP RULING: OSC re Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Plaintiff has presented facts which establish a probability of prevailing o...
..post a bond in the sum of $15,000.00 with the court by 4:00 p.m. on January 25, 2019 (following Friday). (See CCP section 529 (“upon granting an injunction, the court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not exceeding an amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the injuncti...
JAMES A SCOTT JR VS AVIS CAR RENTAL
james a. scott, jr., Plaintiff, v. avis rent a car system, llc, Defendant. Case No.: BC719676 Hearing Date: January 9, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE to Timely Amend NOTICE The Court posts this tentative order on January 7, 2020. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to the Court’s...
..ded complaint within 45 days of notice. Notice was given by mail that same day, meaning that Plaintiff had until June 6, 2019 to do so. On October 9, 2019, Defendant filed an ex parte application to dismiss the case for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. The Court denied the application but, at Plaintiff’s request, afforded him an additional thirty (30) days to file a first amen...
DANNY HENDERSON VS MONIQUE ROBERTS
Henderson v. Roberts 1. Background This case arises from a property ownership dispute, wherein Plaintiff Danny Henderson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Monique Roberts (“Defendant”) has wrongfully taken title and possession of his condominium unit located at 43439 30th Street West, Unit 1, Lancaster, CA 93536 (the “Property”) from which she evicted him through an unlawful detainer action o...
..f action of the FAC along with a motion to strike. After the hearing on the June 25, 2019, the Court sustained the demurrer to the Third Cause of Action with leave to amend, the granted the motion to strike punitive damages and attorney’s fees from the FAC with leave to amend. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), again alleging the same four causes of action f...
ARTHUR A GREENBERG ET AL VS ASTRUM FUND I LP ET AL
ARTHUR A. GREENBERG, et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. ASTRUM FUND I LP, et al.; Defendants. Case No.: BC701494 Hearing Date: August 15, 2019 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendants Astrum Fund I LP, Nevin Sanli, Thomas Pastore, Sanli, Pastore & Hill, Astrum Fund I GP, LP, and Astrum Investment Management aka Astrum I.M., LLC’s Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint and Dismiss Defendants Nevin Sanli, T...
.. This is an action for breach of contract. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiffs Arthur A. Greenberg and Ontario Development Partners (“Plaintiffs”) in 2013 entered into a agreement to purchase ownership interests in an entity investing in real estate portfolios, based on representations from Defendants Nevin Sanli and Thomas Pastore, who operated the defendant firm Sanli, Pastore, & Hill....
GERARDO BRAVO ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
gerardo bravo, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. los angeles unified school district., et al. Defendants. Case No.: BC 523992 Hearing Date: October 25, 2017 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT LA’S PROMISE’S: A. MOTION TO STRIKE AND DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; B. DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Background On October 9, 2013, Plaintiffs Gerardo Bra...
..r about August 31, 2012, and again on or about September 7, 2012, Defendants negligently instructed, trained, controlled, supervised, warned, notified, counseled and monitored their high school football players. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew or should have known that Bravo had sustained head and neck injuries during football practices and games such that Defendants should not have comma...
ANNIE BLACK VS MEDREACH AMBULANCE INC ET AL
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MOTION TO STRIKE GRANTED I. BACKGROUND On February 9, 2018, plaintiff Annie Black (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against defendants Medreach Ambulance Inc, Medreach Ambulance Service, Ryan Binsol (“Binsol”), Alejandro Elizarraraz (“Elizarraraz”), DaVita Airport Sunrise Dialysis, DaVita Inc and Does 1 to 50. On August 14...
..eek. (FAC ¶ 10); (2) Plaintiff signed an acknowledgment which states that she is responsible for her own transportation. (Id. ¶ 11; see Exhibit 2); (3) Plaintiff has been transported from her home to DaVita Airport Sunrise Dialysis’s premises and back home by defendant Medreach Inc dba Medreach Ambulance Service. (Id. ¶ 12); (4) Defendant Medreach Inc dba Medreach Ambulance Service does transpor...
Recent Rulings on Motion to File Substitute or Corrected Brief
Katherine Bacal (9)
Tana L. Coates (6)
Los Angeles County, CA (139)
San Diego County, CA (19)
San Luis Obispo County, CA (12)
SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOHN A BATCHELOR COMP
Leader v. Health Industries of America Inc (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 620. “An attorney negligently fails to diligently prosecute an action. Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides that upon a proper motion the court shall vacate a default judgment or dismissal entered because of an attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Does that mean that a trial court may not dismiss an action for failure of the attorney to diligently prosecute the action under section 583.410? No.
M.F. VS. CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER
Daniels (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 224, 227; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613-14.) Such a dismissal is not mandatory, though. In Daniels, when the defendant filed the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff offered no excuse for her tardiness. Here she has. In Leader, the plaintiff amended one month after expiration of the deadline. Here the delay was one court day, explained by missing the filing cutoff the previous court day.
DEBRA SCHLESINGER GREENWOOD VS 1400 VENTURA BOULEVARD, INC
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Both the transcript and Minute Order indicate that this court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint as to the newly added defendants, FlashFrame, Inc. and The Photoshop, Inc. By including Defendants in the new cause of action against FlashFrame, Inc. and The Photoshop, Inc., the second amended complaint exceeded the scope of the court’s permission.
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Thus, “[i]f an amended pleading is filed after the time allowed, an order striking the amended pleading must be obtained by noticed motion” to strike the improper pleadings. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(i).) As the Court has the discretion to “[s]trike 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.” (CCP § 436(b).)
(Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) The parties may join this court calendar remotely utilizing the following information: 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. calendar: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87868480015?
ADP, LLC, ET AL. VS ORNELAS & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 610; 621.) When a court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, the plaintiff may cure the defects in the existing causes of action but may not add a new cause of action unless he has obtained court permission, or the new cause of action is within the scope of the leave to amend order. (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.)
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612–613.) Section 472(a) expressly states that a party’s single opportunity to amend a pleading without leave of court is conditioned upon filing the amendment before answer or demurrer, or after a demurrer is filed and the amendment is filed on or before the date that the opposition to the demurrer is required to be filed. Cross-Complainant did not comply with the conditional right to amend without leave of court.
COOLEY PLAZA, LLC V. BARRERA, ET AL.
(Leader v. Health Industries of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 615.) A court may grant discretionary relief upon the moving party’s showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Id. at pp. 615-616.) A court must grant mandatory relief upon a showing by an attorney declaration of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Id. at p. 616.)
BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC ET AL VS MONSTER LLC ET AL
(E.g., Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613 [“plaintiffs' failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed by the court subjected any subsequently filed pleading to a motion to strike, either by defendants or on the court's own motion”].) (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528 [bold emphasis added].) Rather, the challenges asserted by Beats may be asserted by way of motions in limine.
FRANCES YANEZ VS JOSE CHRISTOPHER VASQUEZ
JOHN SANDY CAMPBELL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 citing Gautier v. General Tel. Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 302, 310.) Here, Campbell has not previously amended his pleading without leave of the Court. Accordingly, the Court allows Plaintiff’s filing of the Amended Complaint/Petition for Writ of Mandate in lieu of filing an opposition to the instant demurrer. Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is MOOT. DATED: June 22, 2020 ________________________________ Hon.
AXTELL V. CULVER
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613-614.) The court takes judicial notice that the court files reflect that plaintiffs did not file a 2nd amended complaint.
(CCP § 581(f)(2); Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603. 613-614.)) Moving party shall lodge and serve a proposed Order of Dismissal as to defendant County of Los Angeles. The court intends to set an Order to Show Cause why the entire action should not be dismissed for failure to serve all remaining named defendants and Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a Case Management Conference. Notice of ruling by moving party.
MULLIGAN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
(See Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 603, 612-613). The demurrers are sustained without leave to amend for failure to timely file the FAC and for Plaintiff’s failure to move the Court for permission to file the FAC. Id. 2) Statute of Limitations Has Passed The Complaint and FAC alleged in relevant part: “On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff experienced catastrophic brake failure, unable to stop his vehicle due to unresponsive brakes; Plaintiff crashed and suffered severe injuries.”
HEATHER C STOTTS VS ARTT LEDESMA ET AL
., §§ 472, 473; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Some courts require that plaintiff file a noticed motion for leave (Leader, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 613), while others hold the court has discretion to accept the amended pleading without a noticed motion (Harlan v. Department of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 873). The Court has discretion to deny a motion to dismiss where plaintiff furnishes a sufficient excuse for the delay. (See Contreras v.
KYSA PAUL VS TARGET CORPORATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ET AL.
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613.) “After expiration of the time in which a pleading can be amended as a matter of course, the pleading can only be amended by obtaining the permission of the court.” (Id. at 613.) With respect to amending a complaint after the time for such amendment as a matter of right has passed, a plaintiff must “file a noticed motion for leave.” (Id.)
OMAR SPRY VS DARIN BRAWLEY, ET AL.
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 citing Gautier v. General Tel. Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 302, 310.) However, in this case, Defendants have not filed an objection. The Court will allow Plaintiff’s filing of the SAC in lieu of filing an opposition to the instant demurrer because Plaintiff has since dismissed all of the individual defendants such that the demurrer is now largely inapplicable and Defendants have not objected.
AFM & SAG-AFTRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION FUND VS STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY
(Leader v. Health Ind. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)
FLORES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. V. VIVEROS
(Leader v. Health Industries of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 615-616.) Defendant carries the burden of establishing inadvertence, surprise, mistake or excusable neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. (Transit Ads, Inc. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 275, 279.) Defendant’s motion is timely. Defendant submitted a copy of her proposed answer. (ROA No. 52.)
ANNA SHULGA VS MARIA AURORA G. MATHAY, ET AL.
(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, ... in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding …” (CCP § 473(a)(1) (emphasis added).)