Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV37699, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37699    Hearing Date: August 10, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 10, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff John Collard

Responding Party: Defendants Solutions Group International, Inc. dba Solutions Group International and Michael Duffy

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

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 class claims. Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in various Labor Code violations. Plaintiff asserts that he learned of additional violations as to other employees in discovery. In opposition, Defendants assert Plaintiff knew the facts giving rise to class claims prior to filing suit and has unduly delayed in bringing this motion.

The Court will allow leave to file a first amended complaint. Delay alone is insufficient to deny leave and trial remains several months away. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.