Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV24046, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Marshall Pattison’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff may file the proposed first amended complaint with the Court.

Plaintiff Marshall Pattison (“Pattison”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §473(a)(1).) Plaintiff moves on the basis that he seeks to delete references to a dismissed defendant and add a new cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on discrimination against Plaintiff’s medical condition. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint (“Complaint”) on July 26, 2022. Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint and a Cross-Complaint (“CC”) on November 30, 2022. Plaintiff filed his demurrer and motion to strike the CC on January 27, 2023. On August 15, 2023, this Court sustained Plaintiff’s unopposed demurrer to the CC with leave to amend. (8/15/23 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the Complaint on April 28, 2023. Defendants filed their opposition on August 23, 2023. Plaintiff filed his reply on August 28, 2023.

“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 FAC. (Decl. of Alden ¶6, 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. (Motion, pgs. 7-13; CRC Rule 3.1324(a)(3).)

Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Plaintiff submitted a separate declaration of his counsel that specifies the effect of the amendments and explains why the amendments are necessary and proper. (Decl. of Alden ¶¶3-5.) Plaintiff asserts the amendments are necessary and proper to protect Plaintiff’s legal rights. (Decl. of Alden ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel fails to state when the facts giving rise of the amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier; Plaintiff’s counsel merely declares, “a post-filing, critical re-evaluation of the Complaint in this matter demonstrated that an additional cause of action should be plead to serve the interests of justice.” (Decl. of Alden ¶5.) Plaintiff’s reply fails to address these deficiencies in counsel’s earlier declaration, arguing instead that Plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action against Defendants and Defendants have not demonstrated prejudice by any alleged delay in seeking amendment. (See Reply, pgs. 4-7.)

Defendants argue they will be prejudiced by this Court granting leave to amend because there is no explanation for the delay in filing the amendment; the trial will almost certainly have to be continued to allow for different discovery to occur; the claim for anything medical or disability-related was never raised and is an entirely different area of inquiry separate and apart from the tort, contract, and wage and hour claims alleged; and Defendants believe the proposed amendment is not supported by admissible evidence or facts and would be precluded from bringing a motion for summary adjudication as to this claim given timing issues. (Opposition, pgs. 7-8; Decl. of Schwettmann ¶9.)

The Court is not convinced by Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are time-barred. (Opposition, pg. 5.) Here, the new cause of action proposed in the FAC refers to the same incidents as alleged in the Complaint, and therefore relates back to the Complaint’s filing date. (Barrington v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 146, 150; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408-409.)

The Court notes Defendants’ arguments on the timing of the motion and the impending trial date currently set for December 11, 2023. 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].) Further, Defendants’ arguments demonstrating prejudice are not supported by Defendants’ counsel’s declaration before the Court—Defendants’ counsel substituted into the case on May 26, 2023, and has been getting up to speed on the instant matter, no depositions have been noticed or taken, and parties have not set a date for mediation or selected a mediator. (Decl. of Schwettmann ¶¶5, 7-8.) As such, granting leave to amend the Complaint does not appear to alter the progress of the instant case in any meaningful way.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an FAC is granted.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his Complaint is granted. Plaintiff may file the proposed FAC with the Court.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court