Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV23088, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23088    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

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 before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) workplace disparate treatment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) hostile work harassment under FEHA; (3) FEHA retaliation; and (4) failure to prevent under FEHA.

On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (the “Motion”).  The proposed second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges four additional causes of action against Defendant Los Angeles County, Department of Health Services (the “County”). 

DISCUSSION

CCP section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice.  (CCP § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  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 additional claims asserted against the County in the SAC are consistent with the facts and arguments Plaintiff previously raised in the motion for relief from the government claim presentment statute that the Court granted on February 21, 2023.  For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion with five days leave to file the proposed SAC.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

            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 4th day of May 2023