Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 21TRCV00462 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, October 4, 2022

Department B Calendar No. 5

Ana Soto-Trejo’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 25, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff is a former or current employee of Defendants. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of other similarly aggrieved employees, asserts a single cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for Labor Code violations that allegedly occurred during Plaintiff’s employment with Plaintiff’s employer.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473 & 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. However, the court does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. Cal. Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.

The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a): A motion for leave to amend must: “(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.”

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) also requires that the moving party must submit a separate declaration specifying:

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend to add class allegations while retaining the PAGA cause of action.

Plaintiff failed to adequately comply with Rule 3.1324(a). Plaintiff did not provide facts setting forth the allegations to be added or deleted by page, paragraph, and line number.

Plaintiff provided a declaration setting forth the effect of the amendment. (Decl., Jason Rothman, ¶¶ 4, 7.) However, Plaintiff failed to provide a declaration specifying why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amendment were first discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Jason Rothman’s declaration does refer to events in June 2022 related to developing case law, but this does not provide specificity as to when the underlying facts were first discovered.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice.