Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STCV38314 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STCV38314, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 21STCV38314 Hearing Date: September 27, 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 Amend the Complaint (Second) is CONTINUED for the FINAL time to NOVEMBER 17, 2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a revised declaration as noted above at least 16 court 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 September 26, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 26, 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.)

On August 25, 2022, the Court noted that the Second Amended Complaint did not state additional allegations regarding monetary damage and continued the hearing. (8-25-22 Minute Order.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file and serve a revised declaration with a copy of the proposed amended complaint and a redlined version showing the amendments at least 16 days prior to the next scheduled hearing. (Ibid.)

On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed Declaration of Douglas H. Hoang in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.

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.)

On August 25, 2022, the Court noted that it was inclined to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, as it complied with the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. (8-25-22 Minute Order.) However, the Second Amended Complaint did not have additional allegations regarding monetary damages. (Ibid.) The Court continued the hearing and ordered Plaintiff to file and serve a revised declaration with a copy of the proposed amended complaint and a redlined version showing the amendments at least 16 days prior to the next scheduled hearing. (Ibid.)

On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed Declaration of Douglas H. Hoang in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff attached a copy of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint, as well as a redlined version showing the amendments, with additional allegations regarding monetary damages. (Hoang Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, 12, Exs. 1-2.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks “compensatory damages including but not limited to lost wages, overtime compensation, damages for lost meal and rest periods, and other damages in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00,” as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. (Hoang Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. 2 – p. 27.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amendments are not sufficient as they state a general request for damages “in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00,” which is simply the maximum amount that can be awarded in a limited civil case. (Ibid.) The Court cannot “enter judgment for the principal amount demanded in the complaint” as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 585(a) in case of default judgment, if no principal amount is expressly requested.

For this reason, the Court CONTINUES the hearing for the FINAL time to allow Plaintiff to file and serve a revised declaration with a copy of the proposed amended complaint and a redlined version showing the amendments at least 16 court days prior to the next scheduled hearing.

The Court also notes that Proof of Service indicates Defendant was served via mail at 24372 Vanowen Street, Los Angeles, CA 91307. Defendant is to be served at the correct address at 24372 Vanowen Street, Suite 101, Los Angeles, CA 91307.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.