Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV23617, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23617    Hearing Date: August 7, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Juliana Mejia sues Defendant Contract Services Group, Inc. (CSG) and Does 1 to 50 pursuant to a July 21, 2022 Complaint alleging claims of: (1) Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Sex Discrimination; (2) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Sex Discrimination; (3) FEHA Sexual Harassment; (4) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment; (5) FEHA National Origin and Race Harassment; (6) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent National Origin and Race Harassment; (7) FEHA Retaliation for Opposing Unlawful Harassment and Discrimination; (8) FEHA Failure to Take Steps to Prevent Unlawful Harassment and Discrimination; (9) Wrongful Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; and (10) Negligent Hiring and Retention.

On July 27, 2022, service of the summons and Complaint was effected on Defendant CSG by substituted service.

On March 21, 2023, Defendant CSG filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to file a First Amended Complaint without leave of Court.

That same day, the Court rejected the proposed First Amended Complaint based on Defendant CSG having filed its Answer to the Complaint on March 21, 2023, as well as lack of a court order authorizing the filing of the proposed First Amended Complaint.

On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff Mejia’s motion is now before the Court.

The record fails to reflect an opposition by Defendant CSG.

Motion for Leave to File 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 Amend: GRANTED.

A review of the attachments to Plaintiff Mejia’s motion shows that her request satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a)(1) to (3). (See Mot., Errata Haulk Decl., Ex. A [proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC)]; see also Mot., Haulk Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 [addition of eleventh cause of action alleging Civil Penalties – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Action (PAGA), and a new paragraph in the Prayer related to penalties pursuant to this claim].)

A review of the attachments to Plaintiff Mejia’s motion shows that her request satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivisions (b)(1) to (4). (See Mot., Haulk Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 [effect of amendment is to add eleventh cause of action and prayer paragraph relating thereto, and amendment not sought sooner because, as of time of filing of Complaint, a Notice of Private Attorney General Act (PAGA Notice) had not yet been submitted to the Labor & Workforce Development (LWD)], 5-6 [PAGA Notice filed with LWD on February 23, 2023, and attempt at filing FAC made on May 1, 2023, but rejected by the Court, after which Plaintiff attempted to stipulate to filing of her FAC, but Defendant CSG did not respond to request], 7 [amendment necessary and proper because it would allow Plaintiff to recover all damages suffered from defendants’ wrongful acts related to the subject matter of this action in a single lawsuit].)

The Court notes that this motion is unopposed, lending it 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 thus exercises its discretion in favor of this amendment and GRANTS Plaintiff Mejia’s motion. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1047; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) 

Conclusion

Plaintiff Juliana Mejia’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Mejia is ORDERED to file the proposed FAC attached to the Errata Haulk declaration within seven days of this ruling and serve it on defendants in accordance with California law.