Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV00276, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00276    Hearing Date: April 19, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-19-24

Case #22CHCV00276, Iris Arnold, et al. vs. Brian Bauer, et al.

Trial Date: 11-4-24

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Iris Arnold, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Granada Hills Charter

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiffs request leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint

RULING: Motion for leave to amend granted

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Iris Arnold, et al. (Plaintiffs) filed their original complaint. Plaintiffs filed this action because they were fired from their jobs at Defendant Granada Hills Charter (Defendant).

The parties are currently conducting discovery. Trial is currently set for November 4, 2024, after being delayed due to mediation.

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (4AC). Plaintiffs seek to add one new cause of action to their complaint, as well as requests for emotional damages and some additional factual allegations. Defendant primarily oppose Plaintiffs’ motion on the basis that Plaintiffs misrepresent the circumstances surrounding the requested amendments. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs should have already known about the FEHA cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process that they seek to add. Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs misrepresent what the parties agreement was concerning emotional damages. Defendant also argues that it would be prejudiced if Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint. Finally, Defendant argues that the Court should use its discretion to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.

Plaintiffs argue in their reply that the Court should use its discretion to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Next, they argue that Defendant will not be prejudiced if they are allowed to amend their complaint. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that they did not waive the damages that they are now requesting.

ANALYSIS

Courts are authorized, in their discretion, to “allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) CCP § 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.)

Trial in this case is over six months away. Defendant would not be prejudiced in that regard if leave to amend were granted. Additionally, Plaintiffs represent that the FEHA cause of action that they wish to add to the complaint was learned during the course of discovery.

The parties also argue over whether they had an agreement concerning the emotional distress damages. Whether they had an agreement does not really matter for purposes of a motion for leave to amend. What matters is whether Defendant would be prejudiced by their inclusion and whether Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in adding them.

Defendant indicates that no independent medical examination of Plaintiffs has been done because they previously indicated that they would not be seeking emotional damages. Defendant appears to argue that it would be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiffs to add a request for emotional damages at this time. As recently as January 2024, Plaintiffs indicated in discovery that they were only seeking economic damages and not emotional damages. (Opposition at p. 11.)

Defendant has provided an email conversation showing that Plaintiffs voluntarily indicated that they did not wish to pursue the emotional damages. (Westmoreland Decl., Ex. A.) However, Plaintiffs argue in their reply that they did not seek the emotional damages as a compromise in exchange for Defendant not challenging the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs or seeking information concerning Plaintiffs’ medical conditions. (Reply at p. 5.) After Defendant obtained new counsel, Defendant went back on this agreement and began seeking information related to Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and medical conditions. (Supplemental Street Decl., ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs, in turn, decided to seek emotional damages. The Court does not find that Plaintiffs seeking emotional damages would prejudice Defendant or cause undue delay. Any discovery necessary for the claim for emotional damages can be done before trial.

Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b) in seeking to add the new FEHA cause of action. That rule requires that a separate declaration accompanying the motion for leave to amend must include when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (CRC Rule 3.1324(b).)

However, Plaintiffs indicated in their original motion that the FEHA cause of action that they wish to add, failure to engage in the interactive process, is based on much of the same evidence as the other causes of action. In fact, Plaintiffs argue that this new version of their complaint actually narrows the issues. Plaintiffs indicate that the information supporting this new cause of action was learned during discovery. (Amended Street Decl., ¶ 11.) This should be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324(b).

There is a policy of liberally granting leave to amend. Because Defendant as been unable to show prejudice or inexcusable delay, and because trial is still over six months away, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint is granted.

Moving party to give notice.