Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 23STCV11495, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

This case arises out of an employer-employee dispute involving alleged FEHA and Labor Code violations.

On May 22, 2203, Plaintiff Edwin Hernandez (Plaintiff) filed suit against Roadex Cy, Inc. and John Choi (Defendants). The Complaint contains causes of action for (1.) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Code; (2.) failure to furnish wage and hour statements; (3.) failure to maintain payroll records; (4.) failure to provide meal and rest period compensation; (5.) failure to pay wages in a timely manner; (6.) waiting time penalties; (7.) unfair competition; (8.) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9.) FEHA violations based upon disability discrimination; (10.) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of Gov. Code §§12940 et seq.; (11.) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of Gov. Code §§12940 et seq.; and (12.) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed an opposition.

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 based on a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same case. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Thus, 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 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.)

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 moves for leave to amend the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a).

Plaintiff is now seeking to amend the Complaint to add a cause of action for retaliation under FEHA and to plead additional facts in support of this new claim. (LaCour Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A)[1]

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 by failing to identify what new was discovered (if any) to explain why the complaint did not include this new claim. (See generally LaCour Decl.)

Defendants are correct that no explanation was provided. However, this defect is not fatal where the underlying factual allegations to support this new claim were already present in the Complaint and the amendment seeks, essentially, only to add the label of the cause of action. (LaCour Decl., Ex. A, ¶¶ 36, 40, 136-142.) That is, the substance of the claim was largely already alleged in the Complaint.

Defendants also argue that they will suffer prejudice from the amendment because they have already conducted extensive written discovery and noticed depositions. (Buenaventura Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.) However, Defendants do not submit evidence as to how this related theory will result in significantly more discovery; further, depositions have not yet been taken. Having to undertake discovery on this new claim is not itself prejudicial.

Finally, Defendants contends that Plaintiff delayed in bringing this motion. However, under the circumstances, delay alone does not warrant denying this motion, especially where there is adequate time before trial -- which is currently set for November 2025 -- to prepare a defense to this new claim. Accordingly, no prejudice will result from this amendment.[2]

Accordingly, the Court grants leave for Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file his First Amended Complaint within 7 days of this hearing.

[1] Plaintiff originally filed a motion for leave to amend set for January 15, 2025. Ultimately, Plaintiff withdrew this motion and filed the instant motion. No new declaration was filed in support of this motion; as such, the references to the LaCour declaration are presumably to the declaration that was filed on December 19, 2024 with the original motion for leave to amend.

[2] Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not indicated whether he exhausted his administrative remedies and obtained a right-to-sue letter. This argument, however, does not bear on whether Defendants will suffer any prejudice from the amendment. Rather, this argument pertains to the merits of the claim. Generally, the evaluation of these arguments not appropriately addressed on a motion for leave to amend. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [“the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings”].)