Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV01442, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01442    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Katherine Hanson (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”).

The Court GRANTS the motion.

The Court is willing to continue trial to a mutually agreeable date to cure any risk of prejudice to Defendant.

Background

This is an employment case.

Plaintiff filed this action on January 19, 2024, raising claims for (1) discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition; (2) gender discrimination; (3) failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation; (4) retaliation based on exercise of CFRA rights; (5) retaliation under FEHA; and (6) retaliation under Labor Code, section 1102.5.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC raises claims for (1) discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition; (2) failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation; (3) retaliation based on exercise of CFRA rights; and (4) retaliation under Labor Code, section 1102.5.

On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to amend. Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

A complainant may obtain leave from the trial court to amend their pleading beyond the number of amendments allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 472 (a) by filing a noticed motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.) The motion must be accompanied by a 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) why the request was not made earlier.¿(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 (b).)

“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.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) In the absence of a showing of prejudice from the opposing side, the trial court ordinarily lacks discretion to deny a motion to amend a pleading. (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 965.)          

Discussion

            Plaintiff attaches her proposed SAC. (Delvaux Decl. ¶ 2; Motion, Ex. A.) Plaintiff seeks to raise additional claims for (5) failure to accommodate and (6) failure to engage in the interactive process. Plaintiff also seeks to amend her second claim to include violation of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law in addition to CFRA. Factually, Plaintiff seeks to add allegations that Defendant terminated Plaintiff for requesting pregnancy, childbirth, and child bonding leave.

            After filing this action, Plaintiff’s counsel learned that Plaintiff had requested leave for a medical condition related to her pregnancy and learned of facts showing alleged retaliation. (Delvaux Decl. ¶ 5.) As a layperson, Plaintiff did not understand that her request for leave and accommodations were legally protected, and did not initially articulate these facts with sufficient language to support a viable claim. (Delvaux Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff’s counsel realized that these new facts allowed Plaintiff to state claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. (Delvaux Decl. ¶ 7.)

            In the absence of prejudice, the Court may not deny leave to amend. (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America, supra, 6 Cal.App.4that p. 965.)

            Trial is set for November 3, 2025.

            Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced because the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment will, as a practical matter, be around one month after the hearing on this motion. Further, substantial discovery has already been exchanged, including the first session of Plaintiff’s deposition.

            The Court agrees that Defendant may be prejudiced by having to conduct any discovery on the new claims within one month in case it wishes to seek summary adjudication of the new claims. The Court is willing to continue trial to a mutually agreeable date to remedy these concerns.

            The Court grants the motion.