Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV21273, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV21273 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: 74
Conell v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.
Defendants Transdev Services Inc.; Transdev North America, Inc; Timothy Grensavitch’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer
On August 26, 2021, defendants Transdev Services, Inc; Transdev North America; and Timothy Grensavitch (collectively Defendants) filed their original answer. Defendants seek leave to file a First Amended Answer.
Under California Rules of Court 3.1324(b), a declaration must accompany a motion to amend a pleading. The declaration must state: (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. Defendants’ declaration does not describe when the additional facts giving rise to the amended pleadings were discovered or why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
CONCLUSION
The Court denies Defendants’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Answer.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Defendants Transdev Services, Inc;
Transdev North America, Inc; and Timothy Grensavitch’s Motion for Leave to File
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
On
September 30, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 438 subdivision
(e), a party must seek the court’s leave to seek judgment on the pleadings if a
pretrial conference order has been entered or within 30 days of the date the
action is initially set for trial. The Court’s decision to grant leave past
that period is within the Court’s discretion. Notably, a party need not show
good cause for seeking leave belatedly. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004)
123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1063.)
Defendants’
proposed motion for judgment on the pleadings raises Garmon federal
preemption as a bar to the Court hearing Plaintiff’s third and fifth causes of
action for retaliation. Defendants’ motion appears to be non-frivolous. (See
e.g. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2024) 373 NLRB No. 25, 1) Because Defendants’
proposed motion asserts dispositive jurisdictional issues, the Court grants
Defendants leave to file their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
CONCLUSION
The
Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.