Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 24STCV13754, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13754    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Hearing Date:             March 26, 2025

Case Name:                Lawson v. County of Los Angeles

Case No.:                    24STCV13754

Matter:                        Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Cleon Lawson

Opposing Party:          Defendant County of Los Angeles

            This is a FEHA discrimination action. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff Cleon Lawson filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for (1.) discrimination, (2.) retaliation, and (3.) failure to prevent discrimination.          

Then, on February 28, 2025, Plaintiff Cleon Lawson moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Defendant County of Los Angeles filed an opposition.

The motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted.

Legal Standard

            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).) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add allegations “intended to clarify a second instance of discriminatory failure to promote.”

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff unduly delayed in bringing this amendment. Defendant notes the Complaint was filed on June 3, 2024, but the motion to amend was not filed until February 28, 2025. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s counsel had ample opportunity prior to the filing of the Complaint to ascertain the alleged facts underlying the proposed amendment here and has no excuse for the delay.

It is true the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel fails to clearly present facts and circumstances showing how Plaintiff discovered these new allegations. (Haney Decl., ¶¶ 1-9.) As such, Plaintiff does not justify the delay in bringing this motion. Nonetheless, there is no showing that the delay was deliberately dilatory or in bad faith. Thus, under the circumstances here, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend absent a showing of prejudice.

Here, the opposition argues this amendment will cause prejudice. Specifically, Defendant contends that, if the Court permits the amendment, Defendant will need to expend further time and incur further expense to investigate and defend against Plaintiff’s new allegation that Plaintiff’s failure to be promoted was discriminatory; Defendant’s counsel will need to interview additional witnesses, engage in further written discovery, and conduct additional legal research analysis—all at cost to Defendant. (Opp., 4:6-14.)

However, no evidence is submitted to support this argument. (Atkins Decl., ¶¶ 1-4.) Further, taking additional discovery on these new allegations – which do not substantially change the tenor and complexity of the case – does not demonstrate prejudice. Further, the trial date is not until October 12, 2026. That is, the amendment does not prejudice Defendant’s ability to prepare its defense and litigate the claims where there is ample time to conduct discovery prior to trial.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, the Court grants leave to Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint within 3 court days.