Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV32481, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 9, 2023

Case Name: Shams v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV00828

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Saiara Shams

Responding Party: Defendants City of Los Angeles, Henry James Williams, Glenn Barry, 

Zebbra Corbin, and Ana Romero

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff Saiara Shams filed the operative Third Amended Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Henry James Williams, Glenn Barry, Zebbra Corbin, and Ana Romero for (1) FEHA harassment, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to take remedial action, and (5) defamation.  

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a fourth amended complaint adding allegations that (1) on August 14, 2020, she was discriminated against when she was denied a promotion for the Electrical Engineering Associate III position; (2) “Plaintiff reported the discrimination and retaliation and filed a complaint of discrimination with Defendant LADWP’s Equal Employment Opportunity Services (EEOS) division. However, Defendant LADWP failed and refused to take any remedial action and on November 16, 2021, issued its report of findings claiming Plaintiff’s allegations were not sustained”; (3) Defendants refused or delayed providing ergonomic furniture to Plaintiff; and (4) on August 10, 2021, Plaintiff received a memo indicating that her work location would be moved, despite there being no legitimate reason for this.  

Plaintiff indicates that “[s]ince the filing of her Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was wrongfully denied a promotion to Electrical Engineering Associate III [ ] on or about August 14, 2020 (Shigut Decl., ¶ 5) and the ergonomic furniture promised to her upon her return from leave in October 2018 as set forth in her previous complaints was delayed by management for years and not authorized by LADWP until 2021 at which point Plaintiff was given a memo on August 10, 2021 threatening to move her location.” 

Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing “It is obvious that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Jill Shigut (“Plaintiff’s counsel,” or “Ms. Shigut”), have been aware of the denied promotion for nearly three years. Likewise, Plaintiff has been aware of her disputes related to her office and furnishings for two years. Nevertheless, Plaintiff, and her counsel, failed to seek leave to file an amended complaint until the eve of trial. . . . Defendants will be severely prejudiced if Plaintiff is permitted to bring these new claims into this case at this late date. Defendants would be deprived of the opportunity to conduct significant and relevant discovery and investigation, and Defendants would be deprived of the opportunity to file dispositive motions. In addition, Defendants would be deprived of the opportunity to fairly and effectively prepare for trial regarding these new claims.”

The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473, 576.)  In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.”  (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.)  Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)  The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.  (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

This action was filed on January 9, 2019. 

The trial date in this action is set for August 28, 2023. 

The Court is inclined to hear all of Plaintiff’s claims in one suit and neutralize the prejudice to Defendants by continuing the trial date to January 3, 2023, which is before the five-year deadline to commence trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.310.)  

The Motion is granted.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.