Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV15038, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15038    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 74

Fredy Roldan v. Cordova Construction Services, Inc., et al.

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Cordova Construction Services, Inc. and DecisionHR I, Inc. (Defendants).

            On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a first 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 Plaintiff has substantially complied with the applicable California Rules of Court. In opposition, Defendants argue the court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because Labor Code section 218 does not give rise to a cause of action. But the appropriate vehicle for this argument is a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants also contend Plaintiff knew about the facts that support the proposed amendments when he filed the original complaint. Defendants add that Plaintiff waited eight months to pursue the proposed amendments. But absent prejudice, delay alone is not ground for denial of a motion to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) Defendants have not persuaded the court they have suffered prejudice. Indeed, trial is nearly eight months away.

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend a first amended complaint.