Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV34806, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34806    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Deisy Lopez sues Defendant Tropical Realty, Inc. and Does 1 to 10 pursuant to a September 21, 2021 Complaint alleging claims of: (1) Denial of Reinstatement After Medical Leave; (2) Retaliation for Exercising Right to Medical Leave; (3) Interference with Medical Leave; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; (5) Retaliation for Requesting Accommodation; (6) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (7) Disability Discrimination; (8) Denial of Reinstatement following Pregnancy Disability Leave; (9) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (10) Failure to Pay Wages for Unused Vested Vacation Time; and (11) Waiting Time Penalties.

These California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) claims arise from the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Tropical Realty in connection with a leave of absence for medical treatment.

On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff made a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Adding Additional Named Defendant and for Continuance of Trial.

The motion is unopposed by Tropical Realty and is now before the Court.

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(1) The effect of the amendment;

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)

Order Granting Leave to File Amended Pleading: GRANTED.

This motion satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a)(1)-(3) by attaching to the motion a copy of the proposed amended pleading using redlines to differentiate its proposed changes to the pleadings from the original Complaint in this action. (See Mot., Hayes Decl., Ex. 1.)

This motion satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b)(1)-(4) by explaining through a declaration from counsel (1) the effect of the amendment, (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper, (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Mot., Hayes Decl., ¶¶ 4 [“The purpose and effect of the amendment is to name M & M Property Mgt, Inc. as an additional named Defendant”], 5 [“The amendment to add M & M Property Mgt, Inc. is necessary and proper because on June 2, 2023, the existing named Defendant, Tropical Realty, Inc., asserted for the first time – and in contradiction of its prior representations and admissions in discovery – that Plaintiff was actually employed by M & M Property Mgt, Inc. and not Tropical Realty, Inc.”].)

No opposition was made by Tropical Realty against this motion, lending to its merit. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342 [“The failure of the opposing party to serve and file a written opposition may be construed by the court as an admission that the motion is meritorious, and the court may grant the motion without a hearing on the merits”]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [“The rule [inferring merit in unopposed motions] seems to apply only when a party has not filed any written opposition”].) 

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion insofar as it seeks this Court’s leave to file an amended pleading in this action.

Motion to Continue Trial

Legal Standard

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); Hernandez v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 1246.)

Order Permitting Trial Continuance: GRANTED.

Plaintiff Lopez moves for a court order continuing the August 8, 2023 trial in this action on the grounds that: [G]iven that Tropical Realty first asserted [on] Friday [June 2, 2023] that M & M Property Mgt, Inc. – as opposed to Tropical Realty, Inc. – was Ms. Lopez’s actual employer, Plaintiff has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery concerning this potential new defense and the relationship between the two entities”; “Plaintiff seeks only a short two month trial continuance to conduct additional discovery” where “there has been no prior trial continuances in this case”; and “[t]he short continuance would not unduly prejudice Tropical Realty, Inc. or M & M property Mgt, Inc., as they too would be permitted to conduct additional discovery and Plaintiff has not yet been deposed.” (Mot., pp. 5-6; see Mot., Hayes Decl., ¶¶ 13-16 [source of these representations].)

No opposition was made by Tropical Realty against this motion, lending to its merit. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342; Sexton v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1410.) 

The Court finds that these stated grounds provide sufficient good cause to continue trial and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion insofar as it seeks this relief. 

Conclusion

 Plaintiff Deisy Lopez’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Adding Additional Named Defendant and for Continuance of Trial is GRANTED. The parties should be prepared to discuss a new trial date and FSC at the hearing.