Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 24PSCV00126, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV00126, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

This is an employment case. Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER MENDOZA, a Regional Sales Manager who was paid on a salary basis for Defendant LANGERS JUICE COMPANY, INC. (“Langers” or “Defendant”), alleges that Defendant allegedly violated numerous wage and hour laws, including the alleged violation of twice denying him paternity leave.

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit asserting the following causes of action (COAs):

1.     Interference With Use Of California Family Rights Act [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2]

2.     Retaliation In Violation Of California Family Rights Act [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2(L)]

3.     Retaliation Based On Request For Paternity Leave [Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.6]

4.     Minimum Wage Violations [Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194, And 1197]

5.     Overtime Violations [Cal. Labor Code §§ 510,1194, And 1198]

6.     Wage Statement Violations [Cal. Labor Code §226]

7.     Meal And Rest Period Violations [Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, And 1198]

8.     Failure To Timely Pay Wages [Cal. Labor Code § 204]

9.     Failure To Provide Personnel Records [Cal. Labor Code § 226]

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, 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).)

The motion is made to allow Plaintiff to add a Wrongful Termination and representative PAGA claim pursuant to Labor Code § 2699.3. (Motion p. 2:1-3.) The wrongful termination comes as on January 16, 2024, after filing of the instant action, Defendant terminated Plaintiff. (Krebs Decl. ¶6.) As for the PAGA claim, it is unclear why Plaintiff is now seeking to assert representative PAGA claims when the facts were known at the outset. (See e.g., Complaint ¶60 [“Given the length of Plaintiff's- and other employees’ shifts, the unpaid work time often would have been owed at the overtime rate of pay. These systematic failures to provide proper overtime compensation are in violation of California law.”], emphasis added.) Notwithstanding, absent an opposition, the court exercises its discretion to overlook said defects.

Thus, abiding by the strong liberal policy in favor of amendments (Motion pp. 4, 5 citing Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428; General Credit Corp. v. Pichel (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 844, 850), the court grants the motion in furtherance of justice.