Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STCV38314, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38314     Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Mastaneh Haghighatfar

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mastaneh Haghighatfar’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 at 10:00 A.M. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a revised declaration as set forth in this order at least 16 days prior to the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied. 

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 [OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 [OK]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     [OK]

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of August 24, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 24, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 18, 2021, Plaintiff Mastaneh Haghighatfar (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant West Hills Urgent Care, Inc. (“Defendant”) for (1) failure to pay minimum wage (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182, 1182.12, 11980), (2) failure to pay overtime (Cal. Labor Code § 510), (3) failure to provide meal breaks (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7), (4) failure to provide rest breaks (Cal. Labor Code § 226.7), (5) failure to compensate all hours (Cal. Labor Code § 204), (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226), (7) failure to maintain payroll records (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1174, 1174.5), and (8) waiting time penalties (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201. 202, 203).

On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.

No responsive pleadings were filed, so on December 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default and default was entered against Defendant on the same day.  (12-20-2021 Request for Entry of Default.)  On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Application for Default Judgment and a Request for Dismissal of Does 1-50; Does 1-50 were dismissed on March 11, 2022.  (3-10-22 Request for Dismissal.)  On March 24, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment because the complaint did not plead damages and because the $23,000 requested in the Application did not meet the jurisdictional amount for an unlimited civil case.  (3-24-22 Minute Order.)

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend and a Motion to Reclassify the case to limited jurisdiction.  On May 9, 2022, the hearing on the Motion to Reclassify was advanced and heard and the Court ordered the case transferred to limited jurisdiction.  (5-9-22 Minute Order.)

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint.  Hearing on the Motion for Leave to Amend was scheduled for August 25, 2022.  (7-28-22 Minute Order.)

No opposition was filed.

II.              Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a) and § 576.  The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.  [Citation.]”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422.)  Notwithstanding the “policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . .’ [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].”  (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a), (b).)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order allowing her to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).  Plaintiff states that the intention of the amendment is to insert monetary damages so she can pursue default judgment against Defendant.  (Mot. p. 2.)  Default was already entered against Defendant.  (12-20-21 Request for Entry of Default.)  On March 24, 2022, the Court found that it could not enter default judgment because the Complaint did not contain a request for monetary damages.  (3-24-22 Minute Order.)  The Second Amended Complaint is intended to “complete [her] legal claims based on the operative allegations.”  (Mot. p. 3.)  Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not filed any responsive pleadings, so there is no prejudice to Defendant in granting leave to amend.  (Ibid.)

Furthermore, Plaintiff has attached her counsel’s sworn statement, Declaration of Samantha Swanson, to support the Motion.  Plaintiff’s counsel has attached a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit 1) and a redlined version of the First Amended Complaint that demonstrates the proposed amended changes (Exhibit 2).  (Swanson Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Exs. 1, 2.)  The declaration also states that “[t]he effect of this amendment is allow Plaintiff to obtain a default judgment against Defendant based on the same set of facts alleged” and it necessary to obtain a final resolution to the disputed matter.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 6-7.)  Although Plaintiff and counsel were aware of the facts, it appears that they discovered the need to add the monetary damages after the Court’s order on March 24, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff has attached counsel’s supporting declaration, a copy of the proposed amended complaint, and a redlined version of the complaint that demonstrates where and what type of amendments will be made.  Counsel’s declaration also specifies the effect and necessity for making the amendments. 

For these reasons, the Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.  However, the Second Amended Complaint does not have additional allegations regarding monetary damages.  Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the Motion to September 27, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a revised declaration with a copy of the proposed amended complaint and a redlined version showing the type of amendments at least 16 days prior to the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied. 

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Mastaneh Haghighatfar’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 at 10:00 A.M. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a revised declaration as noted above at least 16 days prior to the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.