Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV40168, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40168    Hearing Date: January 12, 2024    Dept: 68

Forouzan Golshani vs. Board of Trustees of the California State University, 20STCV40168

Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Forouzan Golshani

Background

            At the hearing on Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University’s (Defendant) motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff Forouzan Golshani (Plaintiff) made an oral motion for leave to amend his complaint, which the Court denied. Just before that hearing, Plaintiff filed the current motion for leave to amend his complaint on the basis that he wished to supplement the information in his complaint as to his alleged protected disclosures. Plaintiff did not file this motion until after he had viewed the Court’s tentative decision granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Motion at p. ii.)

On December 15, 2023, the Court heard the parties’ arguments and adopted its tentative decision, granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant argues in its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend that Plaintiff’s motion is now moot and is also untimely. Plaintiff argues in his reply that the motion was timely because it was made before and at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.

Analysis

            A court is authorized, in its discretion, to “allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Code of Civil Procedure § 576, likewise, provides that “any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment to any pleading . . .” (CCP § 576.) The determination of whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading rests in the court’s sound discretion. 

Leave to amend is to be liberally granted at any stage in the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1986) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487; see also County of Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Kern County (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1618 (noting that a plaintiff may be granted amendment even at the time of trial).) To overcome the policy of liberally granting amendments at any stage of litigation, a defendant must show both actual prejudice and inexcusable delay. (Magpali, 48 Cal.App.4th at 487.) Prejudice exists where an amendment to a complaint would result in a delay of trial; loss of critical evidence; added costs of preparation; and increased burden of discovery. (Id. at 486-488.)

Further, “‘even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may – of itself – be a valid reason for denial.’ (Citations omitted.)” (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 487 [Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was denied because Plaintiff knew of the facts that he wished to raise in opposition to summary judgment for years before requesting leave to amend].)

            In this case, Plaintiff knew of the facts that he wished to add to his complaint for at least several months prior to the hearing on motion for summary judgment. It was only after seeing the Court’s tentative ruling that Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to amend. This would constitute an unreasonable delay. Furthermore, the proposed allegations that Plaintiff wishes to add to his complaint would not change the Court’s analysis of Defendant’s summary judgment motion. Allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint at this juncture would prejudice Defendant because it would cause unreasonable delay by requiring Defendant to file another motion for summary judgment.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

Order

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED.