What is the test for striking an amended complaint?

The courts are, and should be, liberal in allowing pleadings to be amended, but when, as here, the court reasonably concludes that the plaintiff has made no real effort to comply with the permission once given him to amend his complaint, the amended complaint becomes nothing but a sham. The court is not required to give him another opportunity. The situation here is quite similar to that in Neal v. Bank of America, etc., 93 Cal.App.2d 678, 209 P.2d 825, where the court held the amended complaint to be a sham justifying the trial court in striking it from the files and dismissing the action. As there said, 'No attempt is made to state new facts, or to state the facts more fully, or to bring in any new parties. * * * [I]n determining defendant's motion, the court was fully justified in examining and considering the original complaint. [Citations.] So considered, the 'amended' complaint was no better than the original complaint. * * * [T]he courts have inherent power, by summary means, to prevent frustration, abuse, or disregard of their processes. * * * The fundamental principle running through the cases is that a court is not required to tolerate a purported amended complaint which fails to amend the previous pleading, is not filed in good faith, is filed in disregard of established procedural requirements, [135 Cal.App.2d 161] or is otherwise violative of orderly judicial administration.' 93 Cal.App.2d at pages 682, 683, 209 P.2d at page 827.

Just as in Wilson v. Shea, 194 Cal. 653, 659, 229 P. 945, 947, where the trial court's order striking an amended complaint from the files was affirmed, the amended complaint here 'utterly fails, and in fact does not attempt to remedy the defects' in the plaintiff's previous pleading and 'is in all its essential averments but a repetition' thereof.