Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV28812, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV28812 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 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.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors and violated wage and hour laws. Defendants allegedly fraudulently induced Plaintiffs into signing contracts Defendants never intended to fulfill. When Plaintiffs complained about the wage and hour laws and unfulfilled employment terms, Defendants wrongfully terminated every one of its non-Caucasian Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Marissa Land, Jamil
Houston, Ayesha Khan, Lucas Nyabero, Astrid Stuckelberger and Firas Abras move
for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs Marissa Land, Jamil Houston, Ayesha Khan, Lucas Nyabero, Astrid Stuckelberger and Firas Abras’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed served as of the date of this order.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs Marissa Land, Jamil Houston, Ayesha Khan, Lucas Nyabero, Astrid Stuckelberger and Firas Abras move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
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.)
Here, the motion sets forth the proposed additions and deletions at Pages 2:12 – 6:58 of the Notice of Motion. A copy of the proposed amended complaint was submitted with the motion as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Alishan A. Jadhavji.
Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that the proposed new causes of action fail as a matter of law. The Court does not express an opinion either way at this time. Defendants will be given an opportunity to demur to the new allegations. Generally, the validity of the proposed amendment is not considered in determining whether leave to amend is proper; rather, a demurrer or other law and motion is the appropriate means of testing the legal sufficiency of the claim. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) “[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.’ (Citations omitted.)” (Id. at 213.)
The Jadhavji Declaration does not expressly address the factors set forth at CRC Rule 3.1324(b). However, the Court infers that this request for amendment was not made earlier because the information which gave rise to the need for amendment was first discovered when Defendants produced documents in November 2022. (Jadhavji Decl., ¶¶ 5 – 7.) The Declaration states in conclusory language that “changes are necessary and proper in that they seek in good faith to correct errors and add/amend causes of action that are valid and timely based on recently discovered information from Defendants’ document production, and documents voluntarily produced by David Levesque . . ., and failure to plead them now would deprive Plaintiffs of the right to plead meritorious causes of action in this matter.” (Jadhavji Decl., ¶ 14.) The Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to plead these new causes of action, subject to Defendants’ right to challenge the pleadings.
“Leave to amend is in general required to be liberally granted (citation omitted), provided there is no statute of limitations concern. Leave to amend may be denied if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Citation omitted.)” (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402.) Here, trial is set for November 6, 2023, which is over 7 months away. Defendants have not articulated any prejudice they would suffer by virtue of the amendment, and to the extent that the amendment may require additional time for discovery, Defendants may seek a continuance of trial.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are to file a stand-alone copy
of the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed served as of the date of
this order.