Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV04058, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04058    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles


Terrence Craig,






Case No.:








Tentative Ruling



The Impact Seat LLC, et al.,











Hearing Date: July 28, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Terrence Craig

Responding Party: Defendants The Impact Seat LLC, Tethered LLC, The Impact Seat Foundation Corp. and Barbara Clarke



If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The Court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies (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.  (CRC Rule 3.1324(b).)

It is not an abuse of discretion of the court to grant the motion unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”.  (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.)  “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.”  (Ibid.)  Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial.  (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint to add causes of action for racial discrimination, retaliation and harassment, and to add facts supporting these causes of action. Plaintiff also seeks to add “me too” allegations, describing other alleged incidents of racial discrimination against similarly-situated individuals. Plaintiff complies with (CRC Rule 3.1324(b).) In opposition, Defendant asserts that the “me too” allegations are irrelevant. This is an issue for a motion to strike or demurrer.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.