Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV26380, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV26380 Hearing Date: November 19, 2024 Dept: 74
Corea et al.
v. Fox Sports Holdings, LLC et al.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Sammy Corea, Carol De La Sotta,
Bill Hutson, Sinbad Kazakian, William Alan Pfister, Jr., Rob Ross, Daniel Storm,
Ruby Tse and Bernabe Zepeda (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against defendants
Fox Sports Holdings, LLC, Sports Media Services, LLC, Fox Payroll Services,
Inc, Fox Sports 1, LLC, Fox Sports 2, LLC, Gary Hartley and Does 1-10. The complaint alleges age discrimination.
Plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on September 30,
2024.
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.) “When a plaintiff seeks leave to amend his or
her complaint only after the defendant has mounted a summary judgement motion
directed at the allegations of the unamended complaint, even though the
plaintiff has been aware of the facts upon which the amended is based, ‘[i]t
would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [the] summary judgement
motion by allowing them to present a ‘moving target’ unbounded by the
pleadings.’ [citations.]” (Falcon v.
Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1281.)
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, Plaintiffs included a copy of the proposed amended
complaint that identifies the changes, a separate declaration stating the
effect of the amendment, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts giving
rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons the request
was not made earlier.
Plaintiffs’
amendment seeks to substitute Fox Sports and Fox Corporation (Fox Corp.) in for
Doe Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiffs
seek to add a fifth cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination.
Delay
The
Court finds that Plaintiffs did not delay in filing the motion. Plaintiffs identify Kim Beauvais’s Deposition
on August 20, 2024, which identified the facts that gave rise to the cause of
action for failure to prevent discrimination and the addition of Fox Sports and
Fox Corporation (Fox Corp.).
Parties
agree to substitute Fox Sports for a Doe Defendant.
Defendants
allege Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, about Fox Corp.’s relationship
with Fox Sports because Fox Corporation functions as a holding company for
other Fox entities, which was disclosed previously. Plaintiffs allege under several theories that
Fox Corp. is potentially liable as an “employer” and allege that statements
from Kim Beauvais’s Deposition gave rise to these theories.
Defendant’s
opposition was filed with a notice of errata that the Deposition on which Plaintiffs
rely to establish Fox Corp.’s relevance to the case incorrectly named Fox Corp.
instead of Fox Cable Network Service (Fox CNS). Despite the changes to the Deposition,
Plaintiffs still assert that the facts in the corrected deposition support a
theory of liability.
Plaintiffs
deposed Beauvais on the earliest possible date, then attempted to meet and
confer to stipulate to specific amendments to the complaint. When the meet-and-confer failed, Plaintiffs filed
their motion to amend. Plaintiffs did not unduly delay filing their motion.
Prejudice
Defendants
allege that they would be prejudice by both allowing the amended complaint as
well as adding Fox Corp. as a defendant.
When a motion for summary judgment is pending it is “patently unfair” to
allow Plaintiffs to defeat the motion by “allowing them to present a ‘moving
target’ unbound by the pleadings.” (Melican
v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176.) But given that the motion for summary
judgment was filed on October 8, 2024, several days after the Motion for Leave
to Amend was filed, the Court finds Defendants’ claims of prejudice
unpersuasive. Therefore, the Court
sustains leave to amend for the additional cause of action.
Defendants
also argue that adding Fox Corp. as a defendant in the action would be
prejudicial because it would reopen discovery that is relevant to the Motion
for Summary Judgment. Trial is currently set for September 15, 2025, and discovery
had not closed. Defendants will not be
prejudiced by the addition of Fox Corp. or Fox Sports.
Futility
The
burden for showing futility is very high. Plaintiffs allege that Fox Corp. may
be liable as a employer and include factual allegations to support that. Defendants argue that Fox Corp. is not
liable, but this conclusion is not undisputed.
(Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746.) Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Fox Corp
failed to follow Defendants’ policies regarding discrimination complaints. Defendants argue that the declaration does
not support Plaintiff’s allegations, but again, the conclusion is not
undisputed. Therefore, the Court finds Defendants’ argument the Plaintiffs’
amendment would be futile unpersuasive.
CONCLUSION
The
Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.
Plaintiffs to give notice.