Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 19STCV30877, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed wage and hour violations and retaliated against him for complaining about such violations. He also alleges constructive termination based on racial and sexual battery from a manager while on construction jobs.

Plaintiff Robin Josue Rubio’s motion for leave to file a Supplemental Complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff may file a new action against E Room Design if Plaintiff deems such necessary, but the Court expresses no opinion on any statute of limitations issues at this time.

The ground for this motion is based upon facts which occurred after this action was filed, namely, Defendant WYD Design was wound up, dissolved and all of the debts and liabilities of the entity were paid or paid as its assets permitted. Around the same time, on August 14, 2020, Defendants formed a new entity, named E Room Design, Inc.

Plaintiff seeks to file a Supplemental Complaint to pursue successor and alter ego liability against E Room Design.

Plaintiff cites to the joint stipulation to continue the trial date from March 11, 2024 to some time in June 2024. However, the order continuing the trial date has not been signed, and the trial date as of now remains March 11, 2024.

Because Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 only applies to motions to amend a pleading, the Court does not address those factors, aside from when the new facts occurred and when they were discovered, relative to the filing of this motion.

“The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 464(a).)

[T]echnically an amended complaint will supersede the original complaint unless there is something in the former showing that it is to be considered merely an amendment to the complaint and a "supplementary" complaint is supposed to deal only with facts arising subsequently to the filing of the original complaint and has nothing to do with amendment to conform to the proofs,

The rule appears to be that where a complaint is unobjectionable, a supplemental pleading may be filed in aid thereof, which, leaving the original complaint intact, brings to notice material facts relating to the case, alleged to have occurred after the commencement of the action, but which may materially affect the rights of the plaintiff. (Sec. 464, Code Civ. Proc.; Giddings v. The 76 Land & W. Co., 109 Cal. 116 [41 P. 788]; California Farm etc. Co. v. Schiappa-Pietra, 151 Cal. 732 [91 P. 593].)

It is the general policy that courts should exercise liberality in permitting the filing of supplemental pleadings when the alleged "occurring-after" facts are pertinent to the case. (Citations omitted.) Nonetheless, the motion to file a supplemental pleading is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of a manifest abuse of that discretion. (Citations omitted.) There is no such showing in the instant case. Moreover, the court properly denied the motion on the basis that the supplement to the complaint sought to introduce new causes of action. (Citations omitted.)

Moreover, the filing of an amended or supplemental complaint adding new parties requires leave of the court (citation omitted) and leave could be denied, in the court's discretion, if the plaintiff had unreasonably delayed. (Citations omitted.)

Here, Plaintiff represents that after he became aware of the facts upon which the proposed supplemental complaint by way of the June 29, 2021 depositions of Defendants Sang K. Jun and Chae K. Lim, he filed a Doe amendment on March 7, 2022. On November 28, 2023, the Court found that the Doe amendments was not the proper vehicle to amend the complaint and instructed Plaintiff to seek leave to file a supplemental complaint. Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to amend, but Plaintiff withdrew that motion on January 8, 2024, having filed the instant motion on December 20, 2023.

A procedurally improper effort was made on March 7, 2022 to bring E Room Design, Inc. into this case by way of a Doe amendment. Thus, from at least March 7, 2022, Defendants were on notice that Plaintiff intended to pursue E Room Design, Inc. Notwithstanding the lack of surprise, However, the proximity of the instant motion to the trial date is itself a form of prejudice, since allowing a supplemental pleading would necessarily require a continuance of trial to allow service of the pleading, response thereto (potentially including motion practice) and possibly some amount of additional discovery.

In light of the delay that would be necessitated, Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in timely seeking a supplemental complaint is a significant issue. Standard 2.2 of the Standards of Judicial Administration provides that the goal of each trial court should be to manage unlimited civil cases from filing so that 100% of cases are disposed of within 24 months, or within three years for cases involving “exceptional circumstances.” This case involves a straightforward set of claims and a limited number of parties, and does not appear to have the degree of complexity or unusual circumstances that would justify delay. This case was filed more than four years ago, and further continuances would jeopardize the Court’s ability to have the case brought to trial within five years of filing—even accounting for pandemic-related tolling of the five year rule.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not presented evidence showing that E Room Design, Inc. has potential successor liability. However, a plaintiff need not prove the merits of their claims in order to amend or supplement their pleadings. If a party makes unsupported or false allegations, the opposing party may challenge those allegations by the usual means of law and motion.

Moreover, the Court finds that the proposed Supplemental Complaint (Gabriel Decl., Exh. H) is functionally both a supplemental and amended complaint, since it is not limited to facts which occurred after the original Complaint was filed, and asserts all causes of action against all Defendants dating back to events that occurred before the original Complaint was filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 464(a) (“The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.”).)[1]

As such, the motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff may file a new action against E Room Design if Plaintiff deems such necessary, but the Court expresses no opinion on any statute of limitations issues at this time.

[1] See also Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1032. (“A ‘supplemental’ pleading is used to allege facts occurring after the original pleading was filed. [ ] In contrast, the additional allegations in an ‘amended’ pleading address matters that had occurred before the original pleading was filed.”) (citations omitted.).