Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV23007, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23007    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff Laura Garcia filed this employment action against Defendants King Pelican Laundry LLC and Brett Walker. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on June 13, 2024.

Plaintiff worked for King Pelican Laundry, owned by Brett Walker and his wife, Claudia Walker. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants stole her tips and fired her after she notified them of a disability.

On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants have not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in 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

            Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to do the following: (i) allege alter ego against Brett and Claudia Walker; (ii) add a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (iii) add Claudia Walker as a defendant on certain causes of action. (Valencia Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff was informed in September 2024 that King Pelican Laundry intended to file for bankruptcy. (Id., ¶ 4.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks to establish the Walkers as the company’s alter egos. (Ibid.) The amendment is necessary and proper to ensure remediation for the harms inflicted on Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 8.)

            Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to justify the amendment. The Court finds no prejudice to Defendants.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint is GRANTED. Second Amended Complaint shall be filed within 10 days of this order.