Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV15249, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15249    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 25, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Amy Lindsay

Responding Party: Defendants BPM LLP and Robert Blasi

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS DENIED.

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 amend to add an additional Plaintiff, Jeanine White, and facts and causes of action related to White. Plaintiff asserts that White experienced the same discrimination, harassment, and Labor Code violations as Plaintiff Lindsay while employed by Defendants. Plaintiff argues that amendment should be granted instead of requiring White to file a separate suit because there will be duplicative discovery, witness costs, and legal costs.

In opposition, Defendants argue that the motion should be denied because White’s and Lindsay’s claims involve different facts and events. The Court agrees. Defendants emphasize that White held a position with BPM wholly different from Lindsay’s position, worked at BPM at a different time than Lindsay, and alleges claims arising from different transactions, occurrences, and events than those alleged in Lindsay’s original complaint. Though White and Linsday may have experienced similar treatment, the facts related to the treatment of each are different. Trying the two claims together would not result in significant savings of time or resources.

Plaintiff asserts that, if this motion is denied, White will bring her own lawsuit, and Plaintiff will file a notice of related cases and a motion to consolidate. The Court will address those matters when they are before the Court.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.