Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV04816, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04816    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Paula Bawden’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

I.                   MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Code Civ. Proc. section 473 subd. (a)(1) states that:

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.

“The trial court has discretion to permit or deny the amendment of the complaint, but instances justifying the court's denial of leave to amend are rare.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642.)

“Although 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 [Citations], this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .’ [Citation.] A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Pursuant to California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial 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.”

Such a motion must include a supporting declaration 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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff Paula Bawden (Plaintiff) seeks leave to file a first amended complaint to incorporate allegations related to Plaintiff’s departure from her position in July 2023 and add a cause of action for failure to pay all wages due at discharge. (Motion Exh. A.)

Defendant contends that the present motion should be denied because of the delay since Plaintiff’s discharge, and because the current trial date of October 22, 2024, would not allow sufficient time to conduct discovery. Defendant points to an email from Plaintiff’s counsel dated February 15, 2024, a month before the present motion was filed, in which Plaintiff indicated that they would not amend the complaint. (Opposition Exh. A.)

The relevant course of events is as follows. Trial in this matter was originally set for July 2, 2024. On February 14, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel asking whether the complaint would be amended so the parties could finalize deposition dates, and Plaintiff responded that no amendment would take place. (Opposition Exh. A.) On February 22, 2024, Defendant filed a substitution of attorney, indicating a change of counsel. And on March 4, 2024, Defendants filed an ex parte application seeking a continuance of trial and related dates to permit new counsel to get up to speed. Plaintiff opposed the application, and the court granted it on March 5, 2024. This motion followed three weeks later.

While the above course of events is perplexing, no prejudice from the amendment  has been shown. Defendants cite no prejudice resulting from allowing amendment save the legal fees already incurred in litigating the ex parte application to continue. Although new issues related to final wages and Plaintiff’s termination may ultimately require a further continuance, Defendants merely contend that they could have sought a longer continuance in their ex parte motion had they known that amendment would be sought. (Opposition at p. 5.) Such a continuance has not been foreclosed.

The motion is GRANTED.