Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV09024, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09024    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 14

#8

Case Background

This is an action for retaliation and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges that while she was employed as a facilitator with Defendant, a charter school, she was terminated in retaliation after reporting that she was mistreated by the principal.

On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff Sterling Mahler filed his Complaint against Defendant Ilead Agua Dulce.

On July 3, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer.

On October 18, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for leave to amend its Answer.

Instant Pleading

Defendant moves for leave to amend its Answer.

Decision

Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the Answer is GRANTED. Defendant must file the proposed amended Answer within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

A court may, in its discretion and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., section 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., Rule 3.1324(b).) 

Discussion

Defendant moves for leave to amend its Answer to add the affirmative defense that Plaintiff was terminated for a non-retaliatory reason. Defendant’s counsel testifies that she discovered information about an incident where Plaintiff allegedly conducted an unauthorized fundraiser on Defendant’s campus and then failed to return the funds to the school. (Rosas Decl., ¶¶8-10.) Plaintiff produced the discovery responses containing this information in July 2024. (Id.) The Court finds that Defendant gives a satisfactory reason why the request for leave to amend was not made earlier. Defendant’s proposed amendment is necessary and proper. Defendant provides the proposed amended Answer in its moving papers. Having met the requirements of Code Civ. Proc., section 473(a) and Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the Answer is GRANTED. Defendant must file the proposed amended Answer within 10 days of this order.