Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01698, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01698, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01698 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: C

Samantha Trujillo vs Tempo Cantina Downey LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV01698

Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

Representative Plaintiff Samantha Trujilo’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a Private Attorney General Action (“PAGA”) action filed by Representative Plaintiff Samantha Trujillo (“Representative Plaintiff”) against Defendants Tempo Cantina Downey LLC and Chingon Restaurant Group LLC (collectively “Defendants”) on June 2, 2023.

Representative Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 3, 2023, and now moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC names Erika De La Teja as an additional Defendant and includes additional paragraphs to describe how the acts of Defendant Erika De La Teja gave rise to the causes of action in the SAC. The SAC lists a single cause of action for violation of Labor Code § 2698, et seq.

As of May 28, 2024, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) provides: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)¿

The court has broad discretion to permit amendments to pleadings, and “the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.”¿ (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)¿ “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.”¿ (Ibid.)¿ “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . . .”¿¿ (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)¿ Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.”¿ (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)¿

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) provides, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)). Further, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) provides, “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)).

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, Representative Plaintiff has attached both clean copies and strikethrough copies of the proposed SAC. (Tapanian Decl., ¶ 2.) Additionally, a declaration is attached stating the reasons for the amendment. (See Tapanian Decl.) Accordingly, Representative Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion satisfies the requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324

The proposed SAC is based on the same factual allegations, and alleges violations of the same labor code provisions at issue in the FAC. The only substantive difference between the allegations is the fact that an additional Defendant has been added.

The Court’s discretion to grant leave “should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿¿

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Representative Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint.