Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00054072-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00054072-CU-WT-CTL PARVIZIAN VS GENERAL ATOMICS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Shahnaz Parvizian's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.

The trial court has wide discretion to allow amendments to the pleadings, and such discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments. (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 178; see also Kittredge v. Superior Court (213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend should generally be granted when the amendment is necessary for the pleader to fully present his or her case and the amendment does not unfairly prejudice the defendant by raising new issues the defendant had no opportunity to defend. (See Bd. Of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154; see also Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 31.) Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to conform the complaint to proof already presented in this case relating to the disparate impact theory of proof. Plaintiff explains that she did not seek to amend her complaint earlier because she believed the disparate impact theory was not a separate claim, but instead an alternative method to prove age discrimination that was encompassed by her age discrimination cause of action. Plaintiff now seeks the amendment in response to this court's refusal to consider her evidence in relation to the theory, particularly her expert evidence, in her opposition to Defendant's recently denied motion for summary judgment. (ROA #102, p. 3 ['However, as to the disparate impact argument, the court notes that Plaintiff has not alleged this ground in the complaint and therefore the court will not consider it.'].) The court agrees Plaintiff's motion is timely and proper. Whether styled as a separate claim or an alternative theory of proof, it would have been unfair to allow use of such evidence in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment given the absence of any notice in the complaint of Plaintiff's intent to utilize the theory. Following that decision, Plaintiff has promptly moved to add such allegations to her complaint.

The court is also not persuaded by Defendant's arguments regarding prejudicial delay. Defendant has known since April of this year that Plaintiff had a disparate impact expert and intended to make a disparate impact argument. Defendant has also apparently already conducted its own disparate impact analysis and will have an opportunity to question Plaintiff at her upcoming deposition, and to depose Plaintiff's expert. Although trial is only two months from now, the court does not believe allowing the amendment substantially alters the tenor or nature of the case. In short, Defendants will not suffer undue prejudice as a result of the amendment.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted leave to file the proposed first amended complaint attached as Exhibit A Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019625  26 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PARVIZIAN VS GENERAL ATOMICS [IMAGED]  37-2021-00054072-CU-WT-CTL to the declaration of Max Gavron. Plaintiff has until October 27, 2023, to file and serve the amended complaint.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019625  26