Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 20STCV18213 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Department 58

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file her First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

This is an employment action. Plaintiff LaQuenta Reynolds (Plaintiff or Reynolds) alleged that a co-worker, Thomas Gang, frequently berated minority staff, and aggressively reprimanded her on one of her tasks. On another occasion, Plaintiff claims that she overheard Gang undermine her to another colleague.

In February 2018, Defendant Antelope Valley College (Defendant or College) reportedly eliminated Plaintiff’s position due to “lack of work.” Plaintiff avers that she was then placed in a different job with “half the duties she previously had” and was “effectively demoted.” In Fall 2018, Plaintiff allegedly suffered multiple injuries, including a stroke and in May 2019, after numerous medical leaves, Defendant allegedly terminated Plaintiff.

In May 2020, Reynolds sued the College for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Complaint alleges discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in a good faith interactive process, and retaliation under the California Family Rights Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which is scheduled to be heard on October 18, 2022.

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend her Complaint. Reynolds seeks to add allegations that the College further discriminated against her recently when it failed to rehire her for positions that she was qualified to perform.

Defendant College opposes the motion to amend. It argues that Plaintiff’s delay in seeking amendment is unreasonable and it would be substantially prejudiced.

In reply, Plaintiff argues there was no delay because the most recent event occurred on July 26, 2022. She also contends there is no prejudice to Defendant because she can file a new lawsuit, which would necessitate the discovery and resources anyway. In addition, Plaintiff argues, trial does not necessarily have to be continued since it is still several months away.

Given the law’s liberality in allowing amendments to pleadings and Defendant’s failure to show meaningful prejudice, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading upon any terms as may be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts liberally grant leave to amend in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Accordingly, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is permitted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 [“instances justifying the court’s denial of leave to amend are rare.”].) Absent prejudice, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq., p. 6-184.)

A party requesting leave to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and added, as well as specify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the changes are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3).) The moving party must also attach the proposed amended pleading with a declaration by counsel, describing (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) why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).)

Plaintiff complied with the Rules of Court. The motion for leave attaches a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint, along with a redlined version indicating the changes. (Castro Decl., ¶¶ 3, 8, Exs. 1, 5.) Counsel’s declaration in support of the motion for leave references the newly described facts in her amended complaints to the DFEH. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

Specifically, Plaintiff amended her DFEH complaint three times: April 14, June 15, and August 9, 2022. The April 14 amendment added allegations that Defendant failed to rehire Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) The June 15 amendment proposed to correct Defendant’s name. (Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. 3.) Finally, the August 9 amendment includes additional allegations that Defendant failed to rehire Plaintiff as recently as July 26, 2022. (Id. at ¶ 7, Ex. 4.) Two days after the August 9 DFEH amendment, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to amend her Complaint.

Defendant College argues that Plaintiff inexcusably and unreasonably delayed filing the motion. The opposition contends that Plaintiff waited six months after Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment and four months after she first filed an amended DFEH Complaint. The argument focuses on Reynold’s proposed allegation that since August 31, 2021, Reynolds has applied for numerous positions but was not hired. However, this overlooks that Plaintiff alleges that she was last rejected for a position on July 26, 2022, and that Plaintiff amended the DFEH Complaint two more times – on June 15, 2022, and August 9, 2022. That is, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant rejected her for numerous positions, beginning on August 31, 2021. Thus, the allegations purport to establish a continuing course of discriminatory conduct.

However, even if Reynolds unreasonably delayed in moving to amend, this alone is not reason to deny leave to amend if the College suffers little prejudice. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [“Even if [there was unreasonable delay], it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment”].)

Defendant has not shown substantial prejudice if Plaintiff is permitted leave to amend her Complaint.

Prejudice may exist if amendment would result in, among other things, necessitating a continuance to allow the defendant to depose new witnesses, a delay of trial, a loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Here, Defendant College has not shown substantial prejudice if amendment were permitted. It argues there is prejudice because Plaintiff is moving to amend two years after the original Complaint was filed, six months after the motion for summary judgment was filed, and four months after Plaintiff amended her DFEH complaint. But these arguments concern only delay, which is insufficient to refuse to permit an amendment to the pleading.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff may “potentially defeat summary judgment by presenting a ‘moving target’ unbounded by the pleadings,” but there is nothing preventing Defendant from renewing its Motion for Summary Judgment later after consideration of the new allegations. Defendant’s reliance on Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280 is inapposite because the plaintiffs in that case orally requested leave to amend at the time of the summary judgment hearing. Here, Plaintiff is requesting leave to amend before the opposition to the motion for summary judgment is due.

Finally, relying on Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159, Defendant contends that permitting amendment will increase attorney’s fees. However, in Hulsey v. Koehler, defendant sought leave to amend his answer. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s denial of the motion for leave to amend, finding an “unreasonable lack of diligence in the belated assertion of this defense.” In addition, because that plaintiff’s complaint had an attorney’s fee provision, the trial court stated: “ ‘plaintiff has a right to know his risk and weighs his exposure prior to trial. And I think very arguably prior to trial preparation. But certainly prior to the time that he puts on his evidence.’ ” This reasoning does not apply to a defendant opposing a plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.

Any prejudice to the College is minimal. Trial is scheduled for January 30, 2023, and this motion was filed on August 11, 2022. There is sufficient time for all parties to prepare for trial and discovery is still ongoing. The motion for summary judgment was only filed in February 2022 and the time for opposition has not passed. Plaintiff should seek leave to amend its pleadings to raise new legal theories theory before filing its opposition papers to the motion for summary judgment. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 10:186.1 et seq; see also Kirby v. Albert D. Seeno Const. Co. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1069, fn. 7 [declining to follow 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 233 Cal.App.3d 1 for the proposition that a motion to amend must be filed before the hearing on a motion for summary judgment]; see also Dagher v. Ford Motor Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 905, 928-929 [reversing trial court’s denial of motion to amend the complaint that was filed with plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment].)

Given the new allegations of Defendant’s failure to rehire Plaintiff, some additional discovery may be necessary. However, this minimal degree of prejudice is mitigated by a continuance of the trial date, which this Court would be inclined to grant.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file her First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

With the parties’ consent, the Court will conduct a case management conference to receive the parties’ views on whether the dates for trial or summary judgment should be modified.