Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 22CHCV01350, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jimmy Chavez (Plaintiff) filed this wrongful termination action against defendant Magic Mountain, LLC (Defendant) on December 9, 2022. The alleged causes of action include FEHA violations, California Family Rights violations, Labor Code violations, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. After the court granted Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages from the original complaint, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Defendant again moved to strike punitive damages from the FAC. On July 3, 2023, Defendant withdrew its motion after the parties stipulated to striking punitive damages from the FAC without prejudice.

On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to allege punitive damages and file an amended complaint.

Defendant filed an opposition on March 17, 2025. Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s opposition on March 18, 2025. Defendant responded on March 19, 2025. Plaintiff replied on March 20, 2025.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff argues that the court should grant leave to add punitive damages to the complaint because there is no prejudice to Defendant who has been aware of the facts and legal theories of this case for several years. Plaintiff did not delay bringing this motion. After Plaintiff deposed Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, Amanda Goedike, on September 4, 2024, Plaintiff notified the court of his intent to seek leave to add punitive damages during the final status conference on September 18, 2024.

Defendant opposes arguing that the court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the motion fails to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1324(b) by not attaching a copy of the amended complaint to the supporting declaration. Additionally, the exhibits which Plaintiff uses to the support his motion are documents Plaintiff produced during discovery and were all in Plaintiff’s custody and control in 2022, prior to filing this case. Manager Tammy Jo Nunez’s deposition occurred in February 2024, a year before Plaintiff filed this motion. Although HR Director Amanda Goedike’s deposition occurred in September 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition on three prior occasions for November 8, 2023, December 7, 2023, and August 14, 2024. Defendant agreed to produce Ms. Goedike on each occasion, but Plaintiff elected to reschedule the noticed depositions. Plaintiff’s motion also violates the court’s March 10, 2023 minute order which granted Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint to add only facts supporting punitive damages. In the parties’ joint stipulation, filed July 3, 2023, Plaintiff conceded that he did not have sufficient grounds for alleging punitive damages by the court’s April 10, 2023 deadline. On May 23, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiff’s FAC, without prejudice. Defendant relied upon Plaintiff’s representation, as set forth in the Stipulation, that Plaintiff would not seek allegations of punitive damages. Finally, the amendment will cause undue prejudice to Defendant because fact discovery has ended and Defendant will be required to file several motions including a motion to strike, a motion for summary adjudication, and conduct additional discovery.

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s opposition because the court ordered the parties to serve all opposition papers by March 8, 2025. Defendant did not file his opposition until March 17, 2025. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel made clear that Plaintiff intended to file a motion for leave to add punitive damages at the October 7, 2024 Mandatory Settlement Conference. Defendant has continually engaged in delay tactics in filing its pleadings and oppositions.

Defendant responds that Plaintiff misrepresents the court’s October 7, 2024 Mandatory Settlement Conference order which referred solely to motions in limine. Additionally, according to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, Defendant’s opposition was timely filed.

Plaintiff replies that Defendant’s opposition was still untimely because Defendant failed to account for the two additional days required for electronic service. Thus, the opposition was due March 13, 2025.

“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 Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also In re Marriage of Liss (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1429.) “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 of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

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, 296-297.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [citations omitted].) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, [and] increased burden of discovery.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020), ¶ 6:656 [citations omitted].)

Motions for leave to amend must also meet certain procedural requirements. For instance, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a) requires that the motion “(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.” Additionally, Rule 3.1324(b) requires that the declaration in support of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint must state: “(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.”

Defendant’s opposition is timely.

As an initial matter, Defendant’s opposition was timely filed on March 17, 2025, nine court days before the motion hearing on March 28, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [“Section 1013, which extends the time within which a right may be exercised or an act may be done, does not apply to a notice of motion, papers opposing a motion, or reply papers governed by this section.”].)

The Mandatory Settlement Conference.

The court’s October 7, 2024 Mandatory Settlement Conference order does not govern Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended complaints because the order referenced a briefing schedule for the motions in limine.

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective.

Plaintiff seeks to add requests for punitive damages to his complaint for Defendant’s alleged violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Plaintiff bases these new allegations on depositions from Defendant’s alleged “managing agents” HR Director Amanda Goedike and Manager Tammy Jo Nunez. Plaintiff presents the Declaration of Arthur Sezgin, Esq. and the deposition transcripts of HR Director Amanda Goedike and Manager Tammy Jo Nunez to support the amendment.

However, Plaintiff does not present a copy of the amended complaint outlining the new allegations. The court’s March 10, 2023 minute order granting Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is based on both the absence of sufficient allegations concerning managing agents and the absence of adequate allegations showing malice. Plaintiff’s motion does not address the “malice” ground, making the absence of the amended pleading even more problematic. Next, Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the deposition testimony of Nunez and Goedike paraphrases the testimony and asserts that the testimony is sufficient to show that Nunez and Goedike are managing agents without real analysis or citation to authority. Finally, the Sezgin declaration does explain why counsel waited so long to file the motion after the Goedike deposition and fails to explain why Nunez’s testimony, taken much sooner, was insufficient to bring the motion.