Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV18233, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18233    Hearing Date: June 10, 2024    Dept: 32

 

LAWRENCE “LEON” GIBSS AVRAMIDIS, ,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

ILDICO INC. dba WESTIME, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  23STCv18233

  Hearing Date:  June 10, 2024

 

     [TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file Second amended complaint

 

 

BACKGROUND

            On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff LAWRENCE “LEON” GIBSS AVRAMIDIS, an individual (“Avramidis”) filed this action against Defendants ILDICO INC. dba WESTIME, a California Corporation, and JEAN “JOHN” SIMONIAN, an individual, in which Avramidis alleged a number of wage and hour claims, contract claims, Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims, and Unfair Competition claims.

Avramidis filed a First Amended Complaint on August 25, 2023 adding a claim under the Private Attorneys’ General Act.

On August 29, 2023, Avramidis filed a request for dismissal without prejudice as to his FEHA. 

On September 4, 2023, Avramidis’ counsel allegedly had a phone call with defense counsel in which Avramidis’ counsel explained that he intended to add the FEHA claims through an amended pleading.

 

Avramidis now seeks leave to amend his complaint to add causes of action for: (1) Disability Discrimination under FEHA; (2) Disability Harassment under FEHA; (3) Retaliation Under FEHA, and (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation under FEHA.  Avramidis also seeks to add reference to violations of Labor Code § 2751 to the PAGA claim

            On May 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants filed their opposition on May 28, 2024.  Plaintiffs filed their reply on June 3, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in the furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377.) In determining the extent of prejudice to the opposing party, the court must consider various factors, such as whether the amendment would delay trial or increase the discovery burden. (Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 306.)

A motion for leave to amend a complaint must be accompanied by a declaration that explains: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(b).)

DISCUSSION

As stated previously Avramidis now seeks to add causes of action for: (1) Disability Discrimination under FEHA; (2) Disability Harassment under FEHA; (3) Retaliation Under FEHA, and (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation under FEHA.  Avramidis also seeks to add reference to violations of Labor Code § 2751 to the PAGA claim

            Defendants’ oppositions mainly center around the argument that it would be prejudiced by this amendment.  The court disagrees. The trial is not until December 2024, and there is plenty of time to serve written discovery regarding four FEHA causes of action that Defendants have known about for nearly a year.  Also, the depositions have not yet occurred, and Defendants have time to file a motion for summary judgment.  If Defendants need additional time for discovery and/or motions, a brief continuance would be granted by the court.

            Defendant’s opposition fails to show prejudice, which is the primary factor in denying leave to amend. (See Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1377 [amendments are liberally granted absent prejudice to the opposing party].) As such, the Court is disinclined to deny Plaintiff leave to amend. Defendants retain the opportunity to conduct discovery and/or motions.  The court would also be receptive to a brief continuance of the trial to accommodate defendants.

 

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.   Plaintiff shall file their second amended complaint within 5 days of this order.