Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 21STCV44650, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the matter off calendar.




            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.

        If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff Daisy Segura-Campos’ motion for leave to amend her second amended complaint and file a third amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff may file the proposed third amended complaint with the Court.

Plaintiff filed her initial complaint (“Complaint”) on December 7, 2021. Defendant Performance Composites, Inc. (“Performance Composites”) (“Defendant”) filed a Cross-Complaint (“CC”) against Defendant Pro Employer Staffing, LLC (“Pro Employer”) (“Defendant”) on March 23, 2022. On May 2, 2022, Pro Employer filed its Answer to the CC.

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (“FAC”). On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Performance Composites, Pro Employer, and Gabriel Martinez (“Martinez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging four causes of action: (1) sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On July 6, 2023, Pro Employer filed its Answer to the SAC. On July 11, 2023, Martinez filed his Answer to the SAC. On July 12, 2023, Performance Composites filed its Answer to the SAC.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the SAC on September 11, 2023. Pro Employer filed its opposition on January 9, 2024. Performance Composites also filed its opposition on January 9, 2024. Martinez filed his joinder to Performance Composites’ opposition on January 10, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on February 8, 2024.

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (C.C.P. §473(a)(1).)

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice.’ That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901.” (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)

CRC Rule 3.1321(a) requires that a motion to amend must: “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed . . . amended pleading . . . [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located.”

CRC Rule 3.1324(b) provides, as follows: “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) [t]he effect of the amendment; (2) [w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) [w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) [t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion includes a copy of the proposed TAC. (Decl. of Byrnes ¶2, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff’s motion sets forth the allegations proposed to be added and deleted, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the proposed additions/deletions are located. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 2-6; CRC Rule 3.1324(a)(3).)

Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Plaintiff submitted a separate declaration from her counsel that specifies the effect of the amendments and explains why the amendments are necessary and proper. (Decl. of Byrnes ¶¶3-4.) Plaintiff asserts the amendments are necessary because this Court previously struck punitive damages allegations, and the deposition of HR Manager Daysi Bellamy (“Bellamy”) has since demonstrated they should be included. (Decl. of Byrnes ¶4.) Plaintiff asserts that although the clarification that Labor Code §230(e) is included is not actually necessary, it is proper to give unambiguous notice to Defendants given the evidence since discovered, and although not necessary, correcting the typos, mistakes, and filling in previously unknown witness names is proper as long as the other amendments are being made. (Decl. of Byrnes ¶4.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states when the facts giving rise of the amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier; Plaintiff’s counsel declares, “the facts giving rise to the additional allegations were discovered during the deposition of Bellamy on August 16, 2023,” and “the request for amendment was not made earlier because the information wasn’t known earlier,” and that during the deposition, Bellamy testified that she took action on Plaintiff’s employment because of her domestic violence issues, and that Bellamy creates company policy herself and has the independent authority and judgment to do so. (Decl. of Byrnes ¶¶5-6, 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares few months after filing the original complaint in this matter, he became gravely ill, resulting in significant delay in the litigation of this matter and did not notice prior references to Plaintiff being subjected to domestic violence. (See Decl. of Byrnes ¶¶8-10.)

Pro Employer argues it will be prejudiced by this Court granting leave to amend because Plaintiff would add additional claims and previously unpled facts against Defendants, and thereby dramatically change the nature of this case less than three months before trial, which would require extensive discovery on newly alleged facts and would necessitate delay. (Opposition Pro Employer, pg. 6; Decl. of Schwettmann ¶9.) Performance Composites, joined by Martinez, argue they will be prejudiced by this Court granting leave to amend because Plaintiff would be allowed to add new claims on the eve of trial, and should Plaintiff be granted leave to amend her complaint four months before trial, Performance Composites will be essentially precluded from properly investigating Plaintiff’s claims for domestic violence discrimination/retaliation under Labor Code §230(e) due to the sheer scope of discovery it must complete prior to the discovery cut-off of April 2, 2024. (Opposition Performance Composites, pg. 7.)

The Court notes Defendants’ arguments on the timing of the motion and the impending trial date currently set for April 29, 2024. However, the policy favoring amendment is so strong that denial of leave to amend can rarely be justified: “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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, emphasis added; see Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596 [citing text]; Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1111 [abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when there is a “reasonable possibility” that defect can be cured].)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her SAC and file a TAC is granted.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her SAC is granted. Plaintiff may file the proposed TAC with the Court.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court