Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00222, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00222    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         May 18, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiff Javes, Inc.

Responding Party:                  Defendants Omnis Benefit Plan Administrators LLC, Omega Community Labor Union, Marcus Asay, Fernando Pena, and Antonio Gastelum

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to Include Additional Damages

            The Court considered the moving papers and the non-opposition.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Javes, Inc. filed this action on March 24, 2022 against Defendants Omnis Benefit Plan Administrators LLC, Omega Community Labor Union, Marcus Asay, Fernando Pena, and Antonio Gastelum in connection with workers compensation insurance coverage. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of written contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair competition, and money had and received. Defendants filed their respective Answers on April 15, 2022.

            On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to Include Additional Damages. On May 5, 2023, Defendants filed a Non-Opposition to the Motion.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

            Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1) provides in part:

“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.”

            Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

            Further, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: 

“(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.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff filed the current operative Complaint in this action on March 24, 2022. Plaintiff now seeks to file a First Amended Complaint based on a determination from the California Labor Board (“CLB”) in approximately May 2022, when the CLB assessed penalties against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,127,669.83 for lack of workers’ compensation during the relevant period in question.

            Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a) by providing a marked copy of the proposed amended complaint indicating the proposed changes and a clean copy without the markings containing the proposed changes. Plaintiff has also complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) by providing a declaration setting forth the effect of the proposed amendments, why they are necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier..

            Although Plaintiff has not explained why it waited almost one year between May 2022 and April 2023 to file the instant Motion, especially when trial is scheduled a few months later on July 26, 2023, Defendants’ notice of non-opposition further Plaintiff’s assertion that no prejudice will result from the amendment.

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.