Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV36896, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36896    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 74

Yoon Kyoung Lee v. Gloria Laser Clinic, Inc., et al.

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff Yoon Kyoung Lee (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Gloria Laser Clinic, Inc. (Defendant) and Gloria Moon.

            The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) unlawful business practices, (2) unpaid overtime wages, (3) failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods, (4) Labor Code section 203 wages, and (5) Labor Code section 226 damages.

            On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.”  Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (internal citations omitted).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . .”  (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.134(b).)

DISCUSSION 

            As a preliminary matter, the court notes that Defendant has filed for bankruptcy. When an individual or corporation files for bankruptcy, all legal proceedings against the bankrupt are stayed under the ‘automatic stay’ provision of the bankruptcy law. (See 11 U.S.C., § 362, subd. (a)(1); Rubin v. Ross (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 153, 163-164.) But the stay does not apply to entities other than the debtor, such a corporate affiliates, corporate officers, codefendants, guarantors, or general partners. (Higgins v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 973, 979-980.) In addition to Defendant, Plaintiff’s complaint lists Gloria Moon as a defendant. Moreover, the proposed amended complaint lists Gloria Laser Center, Inc., Richard Rhee, Michael Phillips, and Kum Ok Park as defendants. Thus, the stay does not apply to these additional parties and the court may rule on Plaintiff’s motion.

            Accordingly, the court has reviewed the moving papers and finds Plaintiff has complied with most of the applicable California Rules of Court. Moreover, none of the Defendants have cited any potential prejudice in a timely opposition. However, Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is not serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a); Lee Decl., ¶ 8; Ex. 5.)

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall give notice.