TENTATIVE RULING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(CCP §§471.5, 473, CRC 3.1324(a))

Calendar: 4
Date: 9/30/16
Case No: EC 062170 Trial Date: December 12, 2016
Case Name: Lifesource Water Systems, Inc. v. McMahon

Moving Party: Plaintiff LifeSource Water Systems, Inc.
Responding Party: Defendant James McMahon

RULING:
Motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. The motion fails to comply with the procedural requirements of CRC 3.1324(a) and (b), as the declaration accompanying the motion fails to explain the effect of each amendment, why they are proper, or when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered. The court notes that the need to comply with this rule was previously brought to the attention of plaintiff in connection with its motion to file its First Amended Complaint. In addition, the Court denies the Motion on the grounds of futility, prejudice and sham pleading as discussed hearin.

R