Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV44634 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging nine causes of action that arise out of an employment relationship. On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (the “Motion”). The Motion requests leave to file a first amended complaint (the “FAC”) that includes a tenth cause of action for violations of the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”)

Defendant’s objections to the Declaration of Michael A. Levy (“Levy Decl.”) are OVERRULED in their entirety.

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice. CCP section 576 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 of any pleading or pretrial conference order. (CCP § 576.) There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding. (Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.) An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judge’s sound discretion. (Id.) 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 of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)

The court may, however, deny a motion for leave to amend where a plaintiff has been dilatory in seeking leave to amend and such delay has prejudiced defendant. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where amendment would: (1) cause a delay of trial; (2) increase preparation costs; (3) change the focus of the complaint; or (4) increase discovery burdens. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-88.) Further, the court may consider unwarranted delay in seeking leave to amend, and abuse of discretion is less likely to be found in situations where the proposed amendment is offered after a long unexplained delay or where there is a lack of diligence. (Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280.) For example, when a plaintiff seeks leave to amend his or her complaint only after the defendant has mounted a summary judgment motion directed at the allegations of the unamended complaint, even though the plaintiff has been aware of the facts upon which the amendment is based, it would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat the summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a moving target unbounded by the pleadings. (Id. (citing Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176.)

Under California Rules of Court (“CRC”) rule 3.1324, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must be accompanied by a declaration that sets forth: (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 sooner. (CRC, r. 3.1324(b).)

The inclusion of the CFRA claim is the most significant of the proposed changes stated in the FAC. (See Levy Decl., Exhibit A.) Plaintiff’s counsel claims to have become aware of facts that support the CFRA claim upon reviewing a document produced by Defendant that indicates that Plaintiff’s supervisor referred her to human resources for discipline/termination days after Plaintiff submitted a doctor’s note requesting medical leave. (See Levy Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant produced this document for the first time on January 24, 2023. (Levy Decl. ¶ 7.) The original production requests Plaintiff propounded on January 12, 2021 sought “all responsive, nonprivileged documents” concerning Plaintiff’s discipline and termination. (Levy Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant did not include the aforementioned document in its initial responses provided on June 18, 2021 or its supplemental responses provided on May 16, 2022. (See Levy Decl. ¶¶7-9.) On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel to ask if Defendant would stipulate to Plaintiff filing the FAC. (Levy Decl. ¶ 11, Exhibit C.) Defendant’s counsel did not respond to this correspondence. (Id.) On March 24, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication (the “MSJ”) to the claims alleged in the Complaint.

Although the Court finds that the request for medical leave was known to Plaintiff since the commencement of the lawsuit, it further finds that the Motion sets forth adequate facts to show that allowing leave to file the FAC is warranted under the circumstances. Defendant has not shown that allowing Plaintiff to file the FAC will cause sufficient prejudice that warrants denying leave to amend. Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff strategically waited to seek leave to amend until after Defendant filed the MSJ to file the FAC in order to allege a new legal theory with the benefit of the knowledge of Defendant’s arguments in the MSJ is not convincing. First, Plaintiff notified Defendant of her intention to file the FAC and requested a stipulation to that effect before the MSJ was filed. In addition, while Plaintiff has personal knowledge that she requested medical leave, the Motion specifically cites to a document that Defendant produced this year that may indicate that Plaintiff was retaliated against for requesting medical leave. Plaintiff did not learn of this potential evidence until this year, despite first requesting documents concerning her termination in early 2021.

The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed FAC within five court days of the date of this order. On its own motion, the Court takes the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the original Complaint off calendar and continues the trial to February 6, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in this department to allow the parties to investigate the claims in the FAC, and continues the final status conference to January 30, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. All pre-trial deadlines are continued in correspondence with the new trial date.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court