Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV27862, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27862    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff America Sanchez filed this action against Defendants Lockheed Martin and Henry Roman, asserting causes of action for (1) sex discrimination, (2) sexual harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent, (5) negligent hiring, (6) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

            On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Defendant Lockheed Martin filed its opposition on August 8, 2024. Defendant Roman filed his joinder to the opposition on August 8, 2024.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s proposed FAC adds causes of action based on disability: (i) disability discrimination; (ii) failure to accommodate; and (iii) failure to engage. These new claims are based on adverse actions occurring after Plaintiff filed the original complaint.

            “The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 464(a).) “A ‘supplemental’ pleading is used to allege facts occurring after the original pleading was filed.” (Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1032.) “In contrast, the additional allegations in an ‘amended’ pleading address matters that had occurred before the original pleading was filed.” (Ibid.)

The facts in a supplemental complaint must be “material to the case,” meaning “in furtherance and consistent with the original action.” (Gonzales v. Arbelbide (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 721, 727.) Thus, a supplemental complaint cannot “introduce new causes of action.” (Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647.) “As a general rule, where an original pleading is filed before the cause of action has arisen, that defect cannot be cured by a supplemental complaint addressing matters that occurred after the original pleading was filed.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed FAC seeks to add new causes of action which admittedly arose after the original complaint was filed. Whereas the original complaint alleges claims based on sexual harassment and gender discrimination, the proposed FAC adds claims based on disability discrimination. (See Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1615 [discrimination based on one protected characteristic is distinct from discrimination based on another characteristic].) These new and distinct claims cannot be properly raised as either an amendment or supplement to the original complaint, because they did not exist at the time the original complaint was filed. (See Foster, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 1032; Flood, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 647.)

To properly assert these claims, Plaintiff should have filed a separate action after exhausting administrative remedies as to the new claims, i.e., filing charges with the Civil Rights Department and obtaining a right-to-sue notice. (See Gov. Code, § 12965.) If Plaintiff wishes to have the all of the claims handled in one action, she can request the court to relate the cases.  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint is DENIED.