Preview
TRAVIS H. WH1TFIELD SBN 195108
ANTHONY J. CALERO SBN: 194454
Law Offices of Travis H. Whitfield, Inc. 4/14/2022
2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 138
San Jose, California 95131
Telephone: (408) 879-9039
Facsimile: (408) 879-9327
Attorney for Defendant xxxxx xxxx
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
) CASE NO.:20-CIV-03890
12 )
xxxxx xxxxxx )
13 ) DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S
Plaintiff, ) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
14 ) FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
vs. )
15 )
) Date: April 27, 2022
16 xxxxx xxxx ) Time: 2:00 p.m.
) Dept.: 2 (Two)
Defendant. )
)
18 )
)
19 )
)
20 )
)
21
22 Defendant, xxxxx xxxx, responds to plaintiff, xxxxx xxxxxx' Motion For Leave
23 to Amend Complaint as follows:
24 1. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
25 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint containing causes of action for Civil Harassment,
26 Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on September 10, 2020.
27 Defendant filed her Answer to plaintifF s lawsuit for Civil Harassment and Defamation
28 on or about April 29, 2021.
DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT -I-
The parties have been engaged in written discovery for the last 12 months.
In the past 12 months plaintiff has served defendant with two sets of Form
Interrogatories, three sets of Request for Producfion of Documents (totaling 36 separate
requests), two sets of Special Interrogatories, and 71 Requests for Admissions.
Defendant has provided verified responses to all of plaintifF s discovery except for
Request for Production of Documents, Set Three which sought discovery that violates California
Civil Code tj3295 (c)which provides that no pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted
with respect to evidence of the financial condition of defendant.
The parties participated in mediation on December 8, 2021 in an effort to resolve the
10 claims alleged in plaintiff's Complaint but were unable to reach an agreement.
On February 28, 2022, ten months atter defendant filed her Answer to the original
12 Complaint, plaintiff s counsel e-mailed defense a copy of the Amended Complaint along with a
13 request that defendant stipulate to the filing.
14 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint sought to amend the address of plaintiff
15 counsel's office, to change "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout, and added TWO new
16 causes of action- one for False Personation and one for Conversion.
17 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint and the red line version of the proposed
18 First Amended Complaint that were sent to defense counsel on February 28, 2022 are attached
19 the accompanying Declaration of Anthony L Calero as exhibit A.
20 On March 3, 2022, defense counsel replied to plaintiff s counsel as follows, "I can
21 stipulate to the change of address and changing "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout but I
22 can not stipulate to you filing an amended complaint with two new causes of action because I
23 believe there will be meaningful prejudice to my client."
24 On March 7, 2022 filed the instant Motion for Leave to File and Amended Complaint.
25 The proposed First Amended Complaint attached to plaintifF s motion as Exhibit 3
26 contains THREE new causes of action and is different than the proposed First Amended
27 Complaint sent to defense counsel on February 28 during the meet and confer process.
28
DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT -2-
The rcd line version of plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint attached to
plaintiff s motion as Exhibit 4 also contains THREE new causes of action and is different than
the red line version of plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint sent to defense counsel on
February 28 during the meet and confer process.
On March 14, 2022, plaintiff served notice of a new hearing date for plaintifps Motion
for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
7 2. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiff's Motion is vague, ambiguous, and unclear as to the number of new causes of
action to be added to the Complaint.
10 On February 28, 2022, ten months after defendant filed her Answer to the original
Complaint, plaintiff s counsel e-mailed defense a copy of the Amended Complaint along with a
12 request that defendant stipulate to the filing.
13 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint sought to amend the address of plaintiff
14 counsel's office, to change "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout, and added TWO new
15 causes of action- one for False Personation and one for Conversion.
16 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint and the red line version of the proposed
17 First Amended Complaint that were sent to defense counsel on February 28, 2022 are attached
18 hereto as exhibit A.
19 On March 3, 2022, defense counsel replied to plaintiff s counsel as follows, "I can
20 stipulate to the change of address and changing "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout but I
21 can not stipulate to you filing an amended complaint with two new causes of action because I
22 believe there will be meaningful prejudice to my client."
23 On March 7, 2022 filed the instant Motion for Leave to File and Amended Complaint.
24 The proposed First Amended Complaint attached to plaintiff's motion as Exhibit 3
25 contains THREE new causes of action and is different than the proposed First Amended
26 Complaint sent to defense counsel on February 28 during the meet and confer process.
27 The red line version of plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint attached to
DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT -3-
plaintiff's motion as Exhibit 4 also contains THREE new causes of action and is different than
the red line version of plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint sent to defense counsel on
February 28 during the meet and confer process.
On lines 23 and 24 ofpage one of plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities he
states, "Dr. xxxxxx now seeks to amend the Complaint in this action to add causes of action for
Conversion and False Personation (Penal Code $ 528.5)." There is no mention of the third cause
of action in the proposed amended Complaint attached to plaintiff s motion for "Violation of the
Comprehensive Computer Data and Access Fraud Act".
On lines 27 and 28 of page two of plaintiff s Memorandum of Points and Authorities he
10 states, "If Dr. xxxxxx is denied leave to amend, then he will be deprived of the right to assert
two new meritorious causes of action." (Emphasis added).
12 In sum, defendant is unclear if plaintiff seeks to add two or three new causes of action to
13 the Amended Complaint and seeks clarification from the court on this issue.
14 B. PlaintifPs Motion is untimely and should be denied on that basis
15 Plaintiff s counsel correctly cites California Code of Civil Procedure $ 473(a)(1) that
16 states that the court, "may in the furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper,
17 allow a party to amend any pleading."
18 Plaintiff's counsel also correctly cites Morgan v. Superior Court of Cag In & Eor Los
19 Angeles County, 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530 (1959) for the proposition that, "If the motion to
20 amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is
21 error to refuse permission to amend..."
22 However, in the instant case, plaintifF s motion is not timely made and defendant will
23 suffer substantial prejudice if the motion is granted. The issue of prejudice is addressed in
24 subsection C below.
25 As to the issue of timeliness, we are now more than 18 months away from the date that
26 plaintiff filed his original Complaint and nearly one year since defendant filed her answer.
27 Plaintiff s counsel states in the moving papers (MPA page 2 lines 17-19) that, "On
28
DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT -4-
January 31, 2021 Dr. xxxxxx learned new facts regarding Defendant's tortious conduct in
response to subpoena served upon PayPal." Yet, the instant motion wasn't filed until March
2022.
Additionally, while the "newly discovered facts" may add context to the previously pled
causes of action, the underlying facts supporting the new causes of action for Conversion and
False Personation where already known to plaintiff at the time of filing the Complaint and many
are contained in original Complaint itself. Defendant has no information as to why these new
causes of action were not included in the original Complaint but the facts supporting these
claims were already known to plaintiff s counsel.
10 C. Defendant wiH suffer substantial prejudice if plaintiff is granted leave to amend the
Complaint at this late stage of the litigation.
12 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint containing causes of action for Civil Harassment,
13 Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on September 10, 2020.
14 Defendant filed her Answer to plaintiffs lawsuit for Civil Harassment and Defamation
plaintiff 15
16
on or about April 29, 2021.
The parties have been engaged in written discovery for the last 12 months.
17 In the past 12 months ha served defendant with two sets of Form
18 Interrogatories, three sets of Request for Production of Documents (totaling 36 separate
19 requests), two sets of Special Interrogatories, and 71 Requests for Admissions.
20 Defendant has provided verified responses to all of plaintiff s discovery except for
21 Request for Production of Documents, Set Three which sought discovery that violates California
22 Civil Code tj3295 (c)which provides that no pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted
23 with respect to evidence of the financial condition of defendant.
24 The parties participated in mediation on December 8, 2021 in an effort to resolve the
25 claims alleged in plaintiff's Complaint but were unable to reach an agreement.
26 With discovery nearly complete and following an unsuccessful attempt at mediation
27 defendant believed that this matter would be ready for trial setting at last month's Trial Setting
DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT -5-
Conference. Instead, plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint delayed the setting
o f this matter for trial.
If this motion is granted, the delay in trial will only be extended even further, denying
defendant an opportunity to defend herself against the allegations made by plaintiff and to put
this matter behind her. Plaintiff counsel's statement that, "Allowing Dr. xxxxxx to amend the
Complaint will not result in the delay of trial" is simply false. This matter was set for Trial
Setting on March 29, 2022. Because of this motion no nial date was set and the Trial Setting
Conference was continued until September 13, 2022.
Not only will defendant be prejudiced by the delay in trial setting, she will also suffer
10 substantial prejudice through added costs of preparation and an increased burden of discovery.
Defendant has spent dozens of hours and thousands of dollars responding to plaintiff s
12 voluminous discovery requests thus far. Defendant also spent several hours and more defense
13 costs at a mediation that was apparently unnecessary.
14 Allowing plaintiff to add two or three new causes of action to a Complaint filed more
15 than 18 months ago will undoubtedly increase defendant's cost of defense and her burden to
respond to even more written discovery.
17 D. PlaintifPs counsel has failed to comply with the requirements of California Rules of
18 Court Rule 3.1324(b) and the motion should be denied on that basis.
19 California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b) states that a separate declaration must
20 accompany the motion and must specify (emphasis added):
21 (I) The effect of the amendment;
22 (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;
23 (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered; and
24 (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier
25 The Declaration of attorney Jordan Susman contained at pages 8 and 9 of plaintifF s
26 motion does not address any of the issues required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b).
27 The declaration of attorney Susman does not specify (I) The effect of the amendment;
28
DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT -6-
(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended
allegation were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made
earlier. As a result, plaintifp s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint should be denied for
plaintiff s counsel to comply with the California Rules of Court.
5 3. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff s motion is uncertain, untimely, and will cause substantial prejudice to
defendant through a lengthy trial setting delay, increased costs, and the burden of additional
discovery. Additionally, plaintiff s counsel has failed to comply with the California Rules of
Court specific to Motions for Leave to Amend a Complaint. For all of the foregoing reasons,
10 defendant requests that plaintiff s Motion to for Leave to Amend Complaint be denied,
12 Dated: April 14, 2022
13 T ONY I CALERO ESQ
ttorney for Defendant
14 xxxxx xxxx
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT -7-
Preview
TRAVIS H. WH1TFIELD SBN 195108 ANTHONY J. CALERO SBN: 194454 Law Offices of Travis H. Whitfield, Inc. 4/14/2022 2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 138 San Jose, California 95131 Telephone: (408) 879-9039 Facsimile: (408) 879-9327 Attorney for Defendant xxxxx xxxx SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 ) CASE NO.:20-CIV-03890 12 ) xxxxx xxxxxx ) 13 ) DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S Plaintiff, ) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 14 ) FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT vs. ) 15 ) ) Date: April 27, 2022 16 xxxxx xxxx ) Time: 2:00 p.m. ) Dept.: 2 (Two) Defendant. ) ) 18 ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 22 Defendant, xxxxx xxxx, responds to plaintiff, xxxxx xxxxxx' Motion For Leave 23 to Amend Complaint as follows: 24 1. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 25 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint containing causes of action for Civil Harassment, 26 Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on September 10, 2020. 27 Defendant filed her Answer to plaintifF s lawsuit for Civil Harassment and Defamation 28 on or about April 29, 2021. DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT -I- The parties have been engaged in written discovery for the last 12 months. In the past 12 months plaintiff has served defendant with two sets of Form Interrogatories, three sets of Request for Producfion of Documents (totaling 36 separate requests), two sets of Special Interrogatories, and 71 Requests for Admissions. Defendant has provided verified responses to all of plaintifF s discovery except for Request for Production of Documents, Set Three which sought discovery that violates California Civil Code tj3295 (c)which provides that no pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to evidence of the financial condition of defendant. The parties participated in mediation on December 8, 2021 in an effort to resolve the 10 claims alleged in plaintiff's Complaint but were unable to reach an agreement. On February 28, 2022, ten months atter defendant filed her Answer to the original 12 Complaint, plaintiff s counsel e-mailed defense a copy of the Amended Complaint along with a 13 request that defendant stipulate to the filing. 14 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint sought to amend the address of plaintiff 15 counsel's office, to change "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout, and added TWO new 16 causes of action- one for False Personation and one for Conversion. 17 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint and the red line version of the proposed 18 First Amended Complaint that were sent to defense counsel on February 28, 2022 are attached 19 the accompanying Declaration of Anthony L Calero as exhibit A. 20 On March 3, 2022, defense counsel replied to plaintiff s counsel as follows, "I can 21 stipulate to the change of address and changing "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout but I 22 can not stipulate to you filing an amended complaint with two new causes of action because I 23 believe there will be meaningful prejudice to my client." 24 On March 7, 2022 filed the instant Motion for Leave to File and Amended Complaint. 25 The proposed First Amended Complaint attached to plaintifF s motion as Exhibit 3 26 contains THREE new causes of action and is different than the proposed First Amended 27 Complaint sent to defense counsel on February 28 during the meet and confer process. 28 DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT -2- The rcd line version of plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint attached to plaintiff s motion as Exhibit 4 also contains THREE new causes of action and is different than the red line version of plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint sent to defense counsel on February 28 during the meet and confer process. On March 14, 2022, plaintiff served notice of a new hearing date for plaintifps Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. 7 2. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff's Motion is vague, ambiguous, and unclear as to the number of new causes of action to be added to the Complaint. 10 On February 28, 2022, ten months after defendant filed her Answer to the original Complaint, plaintiff s counsel e-mailed defense a copy of the Amended Complaint along with a 12 request that defendant stipulate to the filing. 13 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint sought to amend the address of plaintiff 14 counsel's office, to change "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout, and added TWO new 15 causes of action- one for False Personation and one for Conversion. 16 Plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint and the red line version of the proposed 17 First Amended Complaint that were sent to defense counsel on February 28, 2022 are attached 18 hereto as exhibit A. 19 On March 3, 2022, defense counsel replied to plaintiff s counsel as follows, "I can 20 stipulate to the change of address and changing "Mr. xxxxxx" to "Dr. xxxxxx" throughout but I 21 can not stipulate to you filing an amended complaint with two new causes of action because I 22 believe there will be meaningful prejudice to my client." 23 On March 7, 2022 filed the instant Motion for Leave to File and Amended Complaint. 24 The proposed First Amended Complaint attached to plaintiff's motion as Exhibit 3 25 contains THREE new causes of action and is different than the proposed First Amended 26 Complaint sent to defense counsel on February 28 during the meet and confer process. 27 The red line version of plaintiff s proposed First Amended Complaint attached to DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT -3- plaintiff's motion as Exhibit 4 also contains THREE new causes of action and is different than the red line version of plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint sent to defense counsel on February 28 during the meet and confer process. On lines 23 and 24 ofpage one of plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities he states, "Dr. xxxxxx now seeks to amend the Complaint in this action to add causes of action for Conversion and False Personation (Penal Code $ 528.5)." There is no mention of the third cause of action in the proposed amended Complaint attached to plaintiff s motion for "Violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access Fraud Act". On lines 27 and 28 of page two of plaintiff s Memorandum of Points and Authorities he 10 states, "If Dr. xxxxxx is denied leave to amend, then he will be deprived of the right to assert two new meritorious causes of action." (Emphasis added). 12 In sum, defendant is unclear if plaintiff seeks to add two or three new causes of action to 13 the Amended Complaint and seeks clarification from the court on this issue. 14 B. PlaintifPs Motion is untimely and should be denied on that basis 15 Plaintiff s counsel correctly cites California Code of Civil Procedure $ 473(a)(1) that 16 states that the court, "may in the furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, 17 allow a party to amend any pleading." 18 Plaintiff's counsel also correctly cites Morgan v. Superior Court of Cag In & Eor Los 19 Angeles County, 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530 (1959) for the proposition that, "If the motion to 20 amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is 21 error to refuse permission to amend..." 22 However, in the instant case, plaintifF s motion is not timely made and defendant will 23 suffer substantial prejudice if the motion is granted. The issue of prejudice is addressed in 24 subsection C below. 25 As to the issue of timeliness, we are now more than 18 months away from the date that 26 plaintiff filed his original Complaint and nearly one year since defendant filed her answer. 27 Plaintiff s counsel states in the moving papers (MPA page 2 lines 17-19) that, "On 28 DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT -4- January 31, 2021 Dr. xxxxxx learned new facts regarding Defendant's tortious conduct in response to subpoena served upon PayPal." Yet, the instant motion wasn't filed until March 2022. Additionally, while the "newly discovered facts" may add context to the previously pled causes of action, the underlying facts supporting the new causes of action for Conversion and False Personation where already known to plaintiff at the time of filing the Complaint and many are contained in original Complaint itself. Defendant has no information as to why these new causes of action were not included in the original Complaint but the facts supporting these claims were already known to plaintiff s counsel. 10 C. Defendant wiH suffer substantial prejudice if plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint at this late stage of the litigation. 12 Plaintiff filed his original Complaint containing causes of action for Civil Harassment, 13 Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on September 10, 2020. 14 Defendant filed her Answer to plaintiffs lawsuit for Civil Harassment and Defamation plaintiff 15 16 on or about April 29, 2021. The parties have been engaged in written discovery for the last 12 months. 17 In the past 12 months ha served defendant with two sets of Form 18 Interrogatories, three sets of Request for Production of Documents (totaling 36 separate 19 requests), two sets of Special Interrogatories, and 71 Requests for Admissions. 20 Defendant has provided verified responses to all of plaintiff s discovery except for 21 Request for Production of Documents, Set Three which sought discovery that violates California 22 Civil Code tj3295 (c)which provides that no pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted 23 with respect to evidence of the financial condition of defendant. 24 The parties participated in mediation on December 8, 2021 in an effort to resolve the 25 claims alleged in plaintiff's Complaint but were unable to reach an agreement. 26 With discovery nearly complete and following an unsuccessful attempt at mediation 27 defendant believed that this matter would be ready for trial setting at last month's Trial Setting DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT -5- Conference. Instead, plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint delayed the setting o f this matter for trial. If this motion is granted, the delay in trial will only be extended even further, denying defendant an opportunity to defend herself against the allegations made by plaintiff and to put this matter behind her. Plaintiff counsel's statement that, "Allowing Dr. xxxxxx to amend the Complaint will not result in the delay of trial" is simply false. This matter was set for Trial Setting on March 29, 2022. Because of this motion no nial date was set and the Trial Setting Conference was continued until September 13, 2022. Not only will defendant be prejudiced by the delay in trial setting, she will also suffer 10 substantial prejudice through added costs of preparation and an increased burden of discovery. Defendant has spent dozens of hours and thousands of dollars responding to plaintiff s 12 voluminous discovery requests thus far. Defendant also spent several hours and more defense 13 costs at a mediation that was apparently unnecessary. 14 Allowing plaintiff to add two or three new causes of action to a Complaint filed more 15 than 18 months ago will undoubtedly increase defendant's cost of defense and her burden to respond to even more written discovery. 17 D. PlaintifPs counsel has failed to comply with the requirements of California Rules of 18 Court Rule 3.1324(b) and the motion should be denied on that basis. 19 California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b) states that a separate declaration must 20 accompany the motion and must specify (emphasis added): 21 (I) The effect of the amendment; 22 (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; 23 (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered; and 24 (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier 25 The Declaration of attorney Jordan Susman contained at pages 8 and 9 of plaintifF s 26 motion does not address any of the issues required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b). 27 The declaration of attorney Susman does not specify (I) The effect of the amendment; 28 DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT -6- (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. As a result, plaintifp s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint should be denied for plaintiff s counsel to comply with the California Rules of Court. 5 3. CONCLUSION Plaintiff s motion is uncertain, untimely, and will cause substantial prejudice to defendant through a lengthy trial setting delay, increased costs, and the burden of additional discovery. Additionally, plaintiff s counsel has failed to comply with the California Rules of Court specific to Motions for Leave to Amend a Complaint. For all of the foregoing reasons, 10 defendant requests that plaintiff s Motion to for Leave to Amend Complaint be denied, 12 Dated: April 14, 2022 13 T ONY I CALERO ESQ ttorney for Defendant 14 xxxxx xxxx 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 DEFENDANT xxxxx xxxx'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT -7-