Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV01154, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV01154    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     February 1, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         BREANN HOWARD, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general, v. KOULAX ENTERPRISES, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV01154

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Breann Howard

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Koulax Enterprises

SERVICE:                              Filed November 17, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed December 1, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed January 24, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff move for leave to file an amended complaint and for an order compelling further responses to her special interrogatories.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Breann Howard’s (“Plaintiff”) Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim against Defendant Koulax Enterprises (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in employment law violations against Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees. Plaintiff filed this complaint on September 8, 2021, alleging one cause of action for violation of PAGA.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the amended complaint within 10 days of the date of this order.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides in relevant part:  “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.” Trial courts have discretion to permit amendments, which should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments to promote the judicial policy to resolve all disputed matters in one lawsuit. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047. “But this policy applies only [w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175, quotation marks omitted.)

DISCUSSION

            Motion for Leave to Amend

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint.

            Rule 3.1324 subdivision (b), requires a motion to amend a pleading to include a declaration that provides: “[¶] (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.”

            Plaintiff provides that the effect of the amendment would be to add various individual and class claims. (Joyce Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Plaintiff amendment is necessary and proper in light of Defendant’s breach of the arbitration agreement. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff seeks to add the additional claims following this court’s order lifting the arbitration stay. (Id. ¶ 12.)

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff has expressly waived class claims, Defendant would suffer prejudice, and judicial efficiency warrants staying the case pending appeal.

            “Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), a court has ample discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where a proposed amendment is legally futile or where there has been inexcusable delay in making the motion, but this discretion is not without limits.” (Jo Redland Trust, U.A.D. 4-6-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 161-62.)

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s class claims are expressly waived. While the court recognizes there could be some merit to Defendant's argument, Defendant’s arguments are nonetheless rejected. The issue of which claims would be barred by the class-action waiver is unclear. Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint with eight causes of action, but the current moving papers do not specify which ones would or should be barred. Further, it would be more prudent for this issue to be adjudicated when the parties have been given the opportunity to fully brief the issues at the demurrer stage.

            Additionally, Defendant’s claims that it would suffer prejudice is unwarranted. Although this case has been pending for over two years, few motions have been filed and trial is not currently set. Thus, Defendant has not demonstrated prejudice.

            Defendant lastly argues that this case should be stayed pending appeal. This request undermines Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiffs delay caused it prejudice. Additionally, Defendant does not posit sufficient reason or justification for a stay of the proceeding. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted.

            Motion to Compel Further Responses

            Plaintiff moves for an order compelling further responses to her special interrogatories. The procedural irregularities of the present case create a confusing timeline of events. Plaintiff initially served her special interrogatory containing a single interrogatory on August 19, 2022. (Alvarado Decl. ¶ 16.) The parties agreed to various extensions. The parties dispute whether the initial motion to compel further filed on February 14, 2023, was timely. Regardless, since then, arbitration was ordered, Defendant subsequently found to have breached the agreement, and the stay was ordered lifted.

            Plaintiff’s motion is based on discovery requests served a year and a half ago based on the parties’ agreements to delay the deadlines for discovery responses and the filing of a motion to compel further. However, Plaintiff does not provide any basis for resurrecting the previous motion or that the parties agreed to allow the motion to be refiled after the stay was lifted.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is denied.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the amended complaint within 10 days of the date of this order.

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to her special interrogatories is DENIED. 

Dated:   February 1, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org