Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 21STCV42967, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV42967 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 26
|
NIKKI MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. NEW SLATE VENTURES, LLC; SINAI
VENTURES; JORDAN FUDGE.; et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 21STCV42967 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT |
Procedural
Background
On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff Nikki Martin (“Plaintiff”) filed the
instant wrongful termination action against Defendants New Slate Ventures, LLC
and Jordan Fudge. On February 16, 2022,
Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants
New Slate Ventures, LLC, Sinai Ventures, and Jordan Fudge (“Fudge”)
(collectively “Defendants”). The FAC
asserts fourteen causes of action for (1) Marital Status Discrimination in
Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) Failure to
Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (3) Retaliation in Violation of
FEHA, (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (5) Failure to
Reimburse Expenses, (6) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Separation of Employment,
(7) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods, (8) Failure to Provide Required
Rest Periods, (9) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, (10)
Breach of Written Contract, (11) Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract, (12)
Failure to Permit Inspection of Payroll Records, (13) Failure to Permit Inspection
of Personnel Records, (14) Unfair Business Practices.
On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file
a Second Amended Complaint. On July 12,
2022, Defendants filed an opposition. On
July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Allegations
of the Operative Complaint
The FAC alleges that:
Plaintiff was employed as a private
chef for Defendants from January 2019 through January 6, 2021 for $3,000 per
week. (FAC ¶ 11.) Plaintiff was not provide relevant wage
statements and deprived of her ability to take adequate meal and rest
breaks. (FAC ¶ 11.)
Fudge orally promised Plaintiff “that
she would be provided with a rate of pay of $3,000.00 per week and would
receive a severance in the amount equal to two months of severance.” (FAC ¶ 12.)
In addition, Plaintiff “was going
through a child support case during her period of employment with
Defendants.” (FAC ¶ 13.) In January 2021, “Defendants were served with
a subpoena regarding her child support case, Defendants called her and told her
to ‘make it go away.’ When she explained to him, he just had to object to it,
he told her he did not have time and ‘could not have a chef with child support
issues.’” (FAC ¶ 14.)
On January 6, 2021, Defendant Fudge
terminated Plaintiff and told her, “‘Since [he] [is] no longer [her] employer,
[he] no longer have to deal with this.’”
(FAC ¶ 15.)
Defendants failed to return all of
Plaintiffs’ personal belongings after termination. (FAC ¶ 17.)
Further, despite Plaintiff’s written request, Defendants have failed to
produce Plaintiff’s personnel and payroll records or allow for inspection of
these records. (FAC ¶ 18.)
Legal
Standard
Code of Civil
Procedure § 473, subdivision (a)(1) states: “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.”
Code of Civil
Procedure § 576 states that: “[a]ny 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 of any pleading or pretrial conference
order.”
Judicial
policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, and
therefore, courts have held that “there is a strong
policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97;
see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc.
(2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great
liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the
proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be
prejudiced.”].)
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to
amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading,
which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to
be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations
are located. Rule 3.1324(b) requires a
separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: “(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
reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”
Discussion
Proposed
Amendments
Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add Plaintiff’s
right to sue letter, the employment agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants,
allegations that Defendants were employers under FEHA; to change Plaintiff’s
hiring date to on or around March of 2019; to add allegations regarding the
employment contract, Plaintiff working unpaid overtime; and to change the terms
to state divorce versus child support.
(Bhatia Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 3.) In
addition, Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 6, Exh.
3.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that he discovered the facts to make changes and
the additions after reviewing the arguments outlined in the demurrer on June
12, 2022. (Bhatia Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.) Further, during Plaintiff’s deposition she
stated additional facts that were not included in the complaint or FAC. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 17.)
Plaintiff has filed a proposed Second Amended
Complaint. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 4, Exh.
1.) In addition, Plaintiff has filed a
redline specifying each change made between the first amended complaint and proposed
second amended complaint. Bhatia Decl. ¶
5, Exh. 2.)
Opposition
In opposition, Defendants contend that the Court should deny
leave to amend because the proposed pleading would be a sham pleading, and
there is no justification for the proposed changes.
Generally, the
sham pleading doctrine prohibits a plaintiff from amending a complaint to omit harmful
allegations from prior pleadings, without explanation. (Deveny v. Entropin,
Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 425.)
Under the sham pleading doctrine, “[a] plaintiff may not avoid a
demurrer by pleading facts or positions in an amended complaint that contradict
facts pleaded in the original complaint, or by suppressing facts which prove
the pleaded facts false.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corporation (1992)
4 Cal.App.4th 857, 877-878.) Where an
amended complaint omits harmful allegations without explanation, the Court may
take judicial notice of the prior pleadings and disregard any inconsistent
allegations in the amended pleading. (Hahn
v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 751.)
The sham pleading doctrine is not intended to prevent honest complainants
from correcting erroneous allegations or to prevent correction of ambiguous
facts. (Ibid.) Instead, it is intended to enable courts “‘to
prevent an abuse of process.’” (Amid v. Hawthorne Community Medical Group,
Inc. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1383, 1390–1391.)
The proposed Second Amended Complaint would not be a sham
pleading. The additions are not
inconsistent with the prior complaints.
For example, the prior complaints alleged that Plaintiff was terminated
because Defendants did not want a chef with a “child support issues,” and Plaintiff
proposes changing that term to “divorce.”
Alleging that Plaintiff was terminated due to having a child support
issue is not a damning admission that the termination was not based on marital
status; it was not specified what the specific child support issue was. The addition of “divorce” clearly explains
the relationship with the child support issue and how it specifically relates
to a marital status claim.
Regardless,
while there may be deficiencies in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, there
is no requirement that a critical inquiry be made into the merits of the
amendment on a request for leave to amend.
(See Ruiz v. Santa Barbara Gas & Elec. Co. (1912) 164
Cal. 188, 196 [ “The usual and orderly way to test the sufficiency of an
amended complaint is, in the first instance, by demurrer, after the same has
been filed, when the questions presented in regard thereto may be considered
and determined, and leave given to the pleader to amend if the pleading be held
insufficient and the court deem it proper that the party should have such
leave.”].) Rather, the proper challenge
to deficiencies to a pleading is through a demurrer or motion to strike. Similarly, evidentiary deficiencies should be
addressed in a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication.
Further, while
there was some delay in bringing the instant motion for leave to amend, leave to
amend is to be liberally granted. In
fact, “trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage
of the proceeding[.]” (Hirsa v.
Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488–489.) Rather, to justify a denial of a motion for
leave to amend, the delay must have caused prejudice to the adverse
parties. (See Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011)
195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147, [“[W]here there is no prejudice to the adverse
party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.”].) Accordingly, the Court turns to Defendants’
claims of prejudice.
Prejudice
In opposition,
Defendants claim that there is significant prejudice as they have already
expended funds responding to discovery and that assert that they will face
prejudice in the form of additional discovery costs. Additional discovery costs may support a
claim for prejudice. (Miles v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 56
Cal.App.5th 728, 739 [“Prejudice exists where the proposed amendment would
require delaying the trial, resulting in added costs of preparation and
increased discovery burdens.”].) However,
Defendants fail to indicate what the quantum of additional discovery will be
necessary. As noted in the moving
papers, Defendants have already conducted a deposition and have planned a
second day of deposition. (Bhatia Decl.
¶ 17.) Further, only minimal discovery
appears to have occurred including a single set of form interrogatories, and
one set of requests for productions of documents. (Supp. Bhatia Decl. ¶ 7.) Thus, there is little to no indication of
what additional quantum of discovery will be required due to these changes. Regardless, trial has not even been set for
the instant action. Thus, Defendants
have sufficient time to conduct the necessary additional discovery.
Moreover, as Defendants
note, most of the proposed amendments merely are recharacterizing allegations
in the complaint. Recharacterizing
allegations are immaterial as [t]he
court does not … assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of
law.” (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital
Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)
Thus, recharacterizing allegations should not add any requirement for
substantial additional discovery. Further,
there is no indication as to what additional discovery would be needed due to
these changes – if any.
In sum, Defendants fail to
identify any prejudice, and it would be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to
amend. Therefore, the instant motion for
leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Nikki
Martin’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is to file and serve the
proposed second amended complaint within two days.
The case management conference is
continued to September 12, 2022 at 8:30 am.
Moving Party is to give notice and
file proof of service of such.
DATED: August 2, 2022 _____________________________
Elaine
Lu
Judge
of the Superior Court