Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 22SMCV02390 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22SMCV02390, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02390 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Carmeletta Mobley (“Plaintiff”) bring this wrongful termination action against Defendants Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Roth Staffing Companies, L.P., (collectively “Defendants”) stemming from her prior employment with Defendants. Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file an amended Complaint. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion.

Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines where allegations would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Analysis

As Defendant points out, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 472, Plaintiff was entitled to amend her Complaint as a matter of right without leave of Court any time before the expiration of her time to file an opposition to Defendant’s pending demurrer. That demurrer is set for hearing on April 6, 2023, and under Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b), Plaintiff had until March 23, 2023, to file an opposition to the demurrer or an amended Complaint. Plaintiff, apparently misunderstanding her ability to file an amended Complaint as a matter of right, chose instead to bring a motion seeking leave of Court to file an amended Complaint instead.

“[T]he purpose of the statute permitting amendments as of right before an answer is filed or a demurrer is ruled upon is to promote judicial efficiency and reduce the costs of litigation. If a defect in a pleading can be cured before the defendant has answered or the court has heard a demurrer, both judicial resources and attorney time will be saved in the process.” (Barton v. Khan (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1221.) The Court finds the purpose of the statute would be best served by permitting Plaintiff to amend her Complaint as a matter of right under section 472. Defendant correctly points out that Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy the requirements of a motion seeking leave of Court to amend her Complaint. Plaintiff’s motion does not attach a copy of her proposed First Amended Complaint, or offer an explanation as to how she intends to amend the Complaint. However, Plaintiff could have amended her Complaint as a matter of right without providing such information.

The Court fins allowing Plaintiff to amend her Complaint as a matter of right under section 472 will best serve the interests of judicial economy and will not prejudice the other parties to this action. If Plaintiff’s amended pleading corrects the alleged defects identified in the two demurrers currently pending with the Court, then judicial resources and attorney time will be saved in avoiding hearings on those demurrers. Conversely, if Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not address these defects, Defendants can re-file their demurrers.

The Court notes Defendant’s counsel acted laudably in attempting to educate Plaintiff on her right to file an amended Complaint without moving for leave of Court, in attempt to avoid the very situation now before the Court. (Collins Decl. at ¶5.) The points raised by Defendant in opposition are well taken, however “‘when a litigant is self-represented, a judge has the discretion to take reasonable steps, appropriate under the circumstances and consistent with the law and the canons, to enable the litigant to be heard.’ (See also ABA Model Code of Jud. Conduct, canon 2, rule 2.2, com. 4 [‘[i]t is not a violation of this Rule [regarding impartiality and fairness] for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard’].) The canons and commentary thus provide a path to ensure a self-represented litigant can be fairly heard on the merits while the court maintains its impartiality and does not assume (or appear to assume) the role of advocate or partisan. (See Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3 [‘a judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently’].)” (Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1434 [internal citation omitted].)

The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve her First Amended Complaint within 20 days of the date of this order. Defendant’s demurrer set for hearing on April 6, 2023, is advanced to this date and continued to April 21, 2023, to be heard concurrently with the demurrer filed by Defendant Roth Staffing Companies, L.P., currently set for hearing on that date. If Plaintiff files a First Amended Complaint within the time contemplated by this order, those demurrers will come off calendar. If no First Amended Complaint is filed, the pending demurrers to Plaintiff’s Complaint will go forward.

The Court also notes irregularities in Plaintiff’s filing. Plaintiff’s motion indicates it was served on Defendants on March 6, 2023. However, Plaintiff did not file her motion with the Court until March 21, 2023, five days after Defendant filed its opposition to the motion. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) requires motions to be both filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing. “A party proceeding in propria persona ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[,] consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985 [internal citation omitted].) Indeed, “‘the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.’” [Citation.]” (First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1; see also Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) While the Court has in this instance granted Plaintiff relief from the timing requirements imposed by Code Civ. Proc. § 472, Plaintiff should not take this as an indication that she is free to disregard the rules of procedure which apply to all litigants and attorneys before the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to comply with Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) and/or any other applicable procedural requirements in her future filings with the Court.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED and Plaintiff is directed to file and serve her First Amended Complaint within 20 days of the date of this order. The hearing on the demurrer filed by Defendant Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., currently set for hearing on April 6, 2023, is advanced to this date and continued to April 21, 2023.