Judge Glenda Sanders, Case 2021-01231331 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Glenda Sanders, Case: 2021-01231331, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) to add a PAGA claim. (Lab. Code § 2699.) For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.

California courts allow great liberality at all stages of the proceeding in permitting the amendment of pleadings to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning Corp. (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 451, 461.) Because the policy favoring amendment is so strong, “It is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1428.) Denial of leave to amend is appropriate where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490.) This may happen where a proposed amendment opens up an entirely new field of inquiry without any satisfactory explanation as to why the major change in point of attack had not been made long before trial. (Estate of Murphy v. Gulf Ins. Co. (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 304, 311.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Procedurally, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading; (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, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (CRC 3.1324(a).)

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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. (CRC 3.1324(b).)

Here, Plaintiff is not changing the nature of this case, is not alleging any new Labor Code violations or other causes of action and is only adding a PAGA claim. The PAGA claim is based on the same Labor Code violations asserted in the Complaint, as Defendant readily concedes. (ROA 22 [Solouki Decl. Ex. B [FAC redline]; ROA 20 [Opposition].)

While Defendant correctly points out this is not an amendment as of “right” because the time periods specified in Lab. Code § 2699.3(a)(2)(C) elapsed prior to the filing of the motion as well as the first time amendment was raised with Defendant, the critical inquiry, against the backdrop of great liberality in amendment, is prejudice.

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, the amendment would not result in any probable prejudice. This action is still in its initial stages and no trial date has been set. Furthermore, Plaintiff has substantially complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 and has not unreasonably delayed in bringing this motion. Based on the purported notice to the LWDA in late November 2021, Plaintiff was required to wait until at least mid-January 2022 before asserting a PAGA claim. While the additional delay of several months is unexplained, the Court finds no probable prejudice would result from amendment, including additional discovery as it is very likely the class members and aggrieved employees overlap significantly if not completely. In fact, rather than an expansion of discovery, Defendant states the addition of the PAGA claim would “truncate the discovery process.” (Opp. at 5.)

Additionally, the PAGA claim is not “redundant” of the class claims. While there are many similarities, there are significant differences substantively and procedurally, including that a PAGA claim is brought on behalf of the state and the relief available through a class action and a PAGA claim are different.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the FAC within seven calendar days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.

If the parties inform the clerk before 12 PM on August 19, 2022 that they submit on the tentative, no appearance is necessary at the hearing. To do so, email the clerk at CX 101@occourts.org.