Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV44739, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44739    Hearing Date: April 19, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Norma Orozco

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed  

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1005(b).

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from Plaintiff Norma Orozco (“Plaintiff”) being subject to an allegedly hostile work environment. On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Bodega Latina Corporation (“Bodega”), Mario Morales (“Morales”) (collectively “Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) hostile work environment harassment; and (2) failure to prevent and/or remedy harassment.  

            On January 12, 2022, Defendant Bodega filed an Answer to the Complaint. On February 2, 2022, Defendant Morales filed an Answer to the Complaint.

            On January 10, 2024, pursuant to a joint stipulation for leave to amend the Complaint and continue trial, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint and the Court ordered Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of the Court signing the order granting leave to amend. (01/10/24 Order.)

            On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint; however, such pleading was rejected on January 31, 2024, due to the First Amended Complaint not being timely filed as ordered on January 10, 2024. (01/31/24 Notice of Rejection – Pleadings.)

            On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). Plaintiff moves for an order granting Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint for the purpose of adding two additional claims of FEHA Retaliation and Constructive Discharge in Violation of FEHA. In support of the Motion, counsel for Plaintiff, Nick A. Yasman (“Yasman”), declares that due to a clerical error within his office, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was not filed and served until January 30, 2024. (Yasman Decl., ¶ 18.)

            Although unopposed, the Court finds that the Motion is procedurally deficient, and the Court therefore cannot grant the Motion. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) requires that a motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a separate declaration specifying: (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. The Court has reviewed the declaration of Yasman in support of the Motion and the declaration of Yasman does not indicate: (1) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (2) why the request for amendment was not made earlier; and (3) exactly when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered. The Motion is not compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

Therefore, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

             Dated this 19th day of April 2024