Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 18STCV00699, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV00699    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated after taking time of to be with his wife during her recovery during pregnancy. Plaintiff also alleges wage and hour violations and brings a PAGA claim. 

            On October 10, 2019, Judge Bryant-Deason granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as to the first through eleventh causes of action and thirteenth cause of action, and stayed the action as to the twelfth cause of action pursuant to PAGA pending completion of arbitration proceedings. 

            Defendants Eataly Century City, LLC and Damiano Brescia move for leave to amend the answer.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Eataly Century City, LLC and Damiano Brescia’s motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED. Defendants are to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Answer today. A copy of the proposed answer was attached to the Proposed Order, which was served upon Plaintiff. 

ANALYSIS

Motion For Leave To Amend AnswerDiscussion

            Defendants Eataly Century City, LLC and Damiano Brescia move for leave to amend the answer to add an affirmative defense for arbitration of the individual PAGA claim and dismissal of the PAGA representative claim following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 1904 (2022).

            On October 10, 2019, Judge Bryant-Deason granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as to the first through eleventh causes of action and thirteenth cause of action, and stayed the action as to the twelfth cause of action pursuant to PAGA pending completion of arbitration proceedings. 

CRC Rule 3.1324 provides:

(a) Contents of motion 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.

(b) Supporting declaration A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

 (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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.)

            Defendants bring this motion on the ground that a Dispute Resolution Agreement was discovered since the original Answer was filed, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022) (“Viking River”) entitles Defendants to compel Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration and for a dismissal of the representative PAGA claim.

            Here, the changes to be made to the Answer are set forth at Pages 2 – 3 of the Notice of Motion. The Declaration of Diane B. Sherman adequately explains the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, (the Declaration of Angelica Robledo explains when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered), and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

            Because the PAGA claim is currently stayed pending arbitration of Plaintiff’s other claims, there is no prejudice in permitting the amendment of the answer toward the purpose of compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim and dismissing Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim. Plaintiff cannot complain of prejudice which justifies denial of leave to amend, as all PAGA plaintiffs were affected by Viking River Cruises.

            As such, the motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED. Defendants are to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Answer today. A copy of the proposed answer was attached to the Proposed Order, which was served upon Plaintiff.