Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV09256, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 21, 2024

Case Name: Lopez v. Jobsource, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22STCV27744 

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jasson Reyes Lopez 

Responding Party: Defendant Reliant Immediate Care Medical Group, Inc. 

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 April 12, 2023, Plaintiff Jasson Reyes Lopez filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Jobsource, Inc., Jobsource Holdings, Inc., Jobsource Downey (collectively, “Jobsourse”), Farwest Corrosion Control Company (“Farwest”), and Reliant Immediate Care Medical Group, Inc. (“Reliant”) for 1) disability discrimination; 2) failure to reasonably accommodate; 3) failure to engage in the interactive process; 4) retaliation in violation of FEHA; 5) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation; 6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 7) aiding and abetting in violation of FEHA; 8) unlawful medical inquiry in violation of FEHA; 9) violation of Labor Code section 432.6; 10) violation of constitutional right to privacy; and 11) failure to rehire in violation of FEHA.

On June 14, 2023, the Court sustained a demurrer to the eighth cause of action against Reliant because “Reliant is not properly alleged to be Plaintiff’s employer—rather, Reliant is a medical provider.  While an employer is liable for its agent’s actions, there is no state authority indicating that the agent could face direct liability.”

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint adding Reliant to the eighth cause of action and to a claim for FEHA discrimination because new case law now allows for direct liability against an agent.

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.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff in that in August 2023 our Supreme Court held that “The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which defines ‘employer’ to ‘include[ ]’ ‘any person acting as an agent of an employer’ (§ 12926, subd. (d)), permits a business entity acting as an agent of an employer to be held directly liable as an employer for employment discrimination in violation of the FEHA in appropriate circumstances when the business-entity agent has at least five employees and carries out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of an employer.”  (Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Med. Grp. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 268, 291.)

Given, among other things, the allegations that Reliant intentionally aided Plaintiff’s employer in FEHA violations, there is nothing precluding liability against Reliant.

The Motion is, thus, 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.