Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV01412, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV01412    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Plaintiff Shelsey Mora’s (“Mora”) Motion For Leave To Add Alter Egos, Andrew Faour, An Individual, Zain Diab, An Individual, And Liquorama, A California Corporation is DENIED.

(2)   Plaintiff Kathryn Reece-Mcneil’s (“Kathryn”) Motion For Leave To Add Alter Egos, Andrew Faour, An Individual, Zain Diab, An Individual, And Liquorama, A California Corporation is DENIED.

(3)   Plaintiff Monique McNeil’s Motion For Leave To Add Alter Egos, Andrew Faour, An Individual, Zain Diab, An Individual, And Liquorama, A California Corporation is DENIED.

Background

These are employment/FEHA cases.

Re Mora: Mora was hired as a server in February 2022. Mora experienced endured abusive language from fellow employees and supervisors, screamed at Plaintiff front of customers, and was not permitted to take an adequate number of meal and rest periods.

Re Kathryn: Kathryn served as a general manager starting in January 2022. Kathryn alleges that an employee fabricated allegations that Kathryn (White and English-speaking) is racist to get Kathryn fired, but it was Kathryn who was discriminated against.

Re Monique: Monique started her position as a server in February 2021. Plaintiff alleges that throughout her employment, amongst not receiving adequate rest and meal periods, one of the founding partners of Wicked Cow would grab her buttocks from behind.

On October 21, 2022, Mora filed suit for the following 8 COAs:

1.     Discrimination Based on Gender in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.) 2. Discrimination Based on Race in Violation of the FEHA (Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.) 3. Discrimination Based on Gender in Violation of the California Constitution (Art. I, § 8) 4. Discrimination Based on Race in Violation of the California Constitution (Art. I, § 8) 5. Harassment in Violation of the FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(j)) 6. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA (Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.) 7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, & Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(k)) 8. Failure to Provide Meal & Rest Periods (Cal. Lab. Code § 512)   

On October 27, 2022, Kathryn and Monique filed their complaints for similar COAs with additional COAs for: 9. Failure to Pay Earned Wages (Cal. Lab. Code § 204) 10. Failure to Pay [State] Minimum Wage, Including Overtime Compensation at the Minimum Wage Rate (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198; IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001) 11. Failure to Furnish Complete and Accurate Wage Statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)) 12. Non-payment of Wages When Due (Cal. Labor Code § 218) 13. For Waiting Time Penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 203) 14. Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, et seq.)[1]

On February 1, 2023, Defendant filed its answer in all three cases.

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed three ‘Amendment[s] to Complaint (Fictious/Incorrect Name)’ naming Liquorama, Andrew Faour, and Zain Daib as Doe Defendants.[2]

On February 6, 2024, the court continued the hearings to allow for Plaintiff to cure their motions.

On February 7, 2024, the renewed/amended motions were filed.

On February 29, 2024, Defendant filed its oppositions to the motions.

To date, no reply has been received (due 5 court days before hearing (Fri. March 8)

Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, 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., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.)  The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)  

Under California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1324, 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

Previously, the court denied the motion for various defects, but notably that Plaintiffs have made no adequate showing of alter ego. As the motions have failed to cure the defects and merely provides legal conclusions without any analysis, the court adheres to its originally posted tentative, which is below.

As all three motions, oppositions, and replies are identical, the court will provide a consolidated analysis.

Plaintiffs seek to add certain individuals and entities as alter egos of the Defendant based on the unity of interest and ownership between them. (Motions p. 2.)

Frankly, the above is the extent of the “analysis” provided. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to rebut Defendant’s contention in opposition that the alter ego doctrine does not apply, it merely restates rules pertaining to the doctrine without an analysis. Additionally, no proposed amendment is provided. Lastly, no specifics about when it “became evident that certain individuals and entities not originally named in the Complaint were directly involved in the alleged wrongful conduct and should be added as alter egos of the Defendant.” (Motion p. 5 of 11.)

All in all, the motion fails as it does not comply with CRC and CCP requirements.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.