Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV14617, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14617    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 55

CORPRUE v. CITY OF LAWNDALE                                                      20STCV14617

Hearing Date:  1/10/23,  Dept. 55

#10:   MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendants

 

 

Summary

 

On 4/15/20, Plaintiff RODERICK CORPRUE filed a Complaint.

On 11/15/22, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, to add claims and theories arising since Plaintiff filed this action, including constructive employment termination, and.alleging that Plaintiff worked as a maintenance worker, and employer Defendant City of Lawndale intentionally assigned Plaintiff to do work that violated his medical restrictions, and refused to offer available, reasonable work accommodations, based upon discrimination and retaliations.

The causes of action of the Third Amended Complaint are:

1. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, AGE, AND DISABILITY/PERCEIVED

DISABILITY;

2. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT – HARASSMENT BASED ON RACE, AGE, AND DISABILITY/PERCEIVED DISABILITY;

3. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT – RETALIATION;

4. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING – FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS;

5. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING – FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE;

6. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING – FAILURE TO PREVENT/INVESTIGATE;

7. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5;

8. VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT; and

9. DEFAMATION.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests an order allowing leave to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint, on grounds including the following:

 

·         Plaintiff seeks to add recent events, including Defendant’s continuing FEHA violations.

·         Granting the requested leave will conserve judicial resources, resolve all issues between the parties.

·         Defendant will not be prejudiced by amending, since it is aware of the employment violations.

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing parties advocate denying, for reasons including the following:

 

·         Plaintiff did not file a DFEH complaint raising these entirely new, post-filing allegations of racial animus, and thus cannot now assert these claims.

·         Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to these claims by including them in a DFEH complaint.

·         Plaintiff continues to assert several causes of action (i.e., the 7th through 9th COAs) that the Court already dismissed pursuant to the MSJ, and also realleges myriad facts supporting aspects of the FEHA claims (i.e., race and age-based discrimination and harassment) that were dismissed.

·         Certain of the proposed amendments not barred by the MSJ ruling allege nothing more than continuing violations comprising additional evidence of on-going FEHA violations relating to the City’s failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s alleged disability, but these allegations are cumulative and unnecessary, since there is no need to plead a continuing violation.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is granted.

Courts generally do not consider the validity of proposed amendments to a pleading.  Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047;  Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2006) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 760 (“the better course of action would have been to allow … [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”). 

“It is the general policy that courts should exercise liberality in permitting the filing of supplemental pleadings when the alleged ‘occurring-after’ facts are pertinent to the case…. Nonetheless, the motion to file a supplemental pleading is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of a manifest abuse of that discretion.”  Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647.

An employee’s subsequent administrative charge for acts occurring after the filing of the first claim, has been considered proper.  Soldinger v. Northwest Airlines (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 345, 382.

Allegations to the effect that the complainant has timely filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, constitutes sufficient pleading of exhaustion, as to FEHA claims. Williams v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 708, 721.

“Following a grant of summary adjudication in a defendant's favor, the cause of action is deemed ‘established’ and the parties may not relitigate the issue.”  Pinter-Brown v. Regents of Univ. of California (2020) 48 Cal. App. 5th 55, 99.  But cf. Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 963, 977–78  (“While an insured may obtain an early summary adjudication of a defense obligation, the insurer is entitled to seek a contrary ruling at any time it acquires the requisite evidence to conclusively eliminate any potential for coverage.”);  California Insurance Law Handbook § 46:118. Leave to amend a complaint should be allowed where summary adjudication was a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading.  Kirby v. Albert D. Seeno Constr. Co. (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1067.   See also generally Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial  (The Rutter Group 2022)  § 10:347  (motion for relief from summary adjudication possible).

Parties may but need not reallege summarily adjudicated claims in each amended complaint in order to avoid waivers of raising issues on appeal.  Burch v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, 1417), disapproved on other grounds by McMillin Albany LLC v. Sup. Ct. (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 241.