Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV2305541, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV2305541, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a first amended answer is granted. Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. may file the proposed first amended answer with the Court.

Plaintiff Bridgette Carrillo (“Carrillo”) (“Plaintiff”) filed her operative Complaint on March 13, 2023, against her former employer, Defendant T-Mobile for eight causes of action: (1) disability discrimination; (2) disability related harassment; (3) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (6) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (7) interference and retaliation in violation of the CFRA; and (8) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. T-Mobile filed its Answer on April 20, 2023.

T-Mobile filed the instant motion on May 20, 2025. On May 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed her opposition.

“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.”

Defendant’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The notice of the motion includes a copy of the proposed first amended answer. (Notice Motion, Exh. A.) Defendant’s notice of motion states:

T-Mobile’s proposed First Amended Answer will change the Forty-Ninth Defense, which was the Reservation of Rights (found on page 11, lines 11 through 14 of the Answer filed April 20, 2023) to add the defense of “No Certification From Healthcare Provider.” The Reservation of Rights defense (using the same text that existed in T-Mobile’s initial Answer) will be the Fiftieth Defense in T-Mobile’s proposed First Amended Answer. The changes reflected in T-Mobile’s proposed First Amended Answer are as follows (the strikethrough text shows text existing in the Answer that is deleted from the proposed First Amended Answer) and are located at page 11 lines 11 through 19 of the proposed First Amended Answer.

(Notice Motion, pg. 2.) The notice also includes text with a strikethrough reflecting the changes as well.

Defendant’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Defendant’s counsel’s declaration specifies the effect of the amendments and explains why the amendments are necessary and proper. (See Decl. of Sullivan ¶18.) Defendant asserts the amendments are necessary and proper to enable T-Mobile to present all defenses in this action given that Plaintiff’s claims and T-Mobile’s defenses have developed through discovery. (Decl. of Sullivan ¶18.)

Defendant’s counsel states why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Defendant’s counsel declares that “Defendants did not make this request earlier because T-Mobile ascertained that the defense is applicable in this litigation in the course of discovery and meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding forthcoming motions in limine. Extensive discovery and investigation relating to the ‘No Certification From Health Care Provider’ defense has been conducted by both parties, as evidenced by the exhibits attached hereto, and was necessary given.” (Decl. of Sullivan ¶17.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer and file the proposed first amended answer is granted.

Defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer is granted. Defendant may file the proposed first amended answer with the Court.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court