Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV02409, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02409    Hearing Date: July 17, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Maria Aguayo’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The proposed SAC is deemed filed and served as of the date of the instant hearing.

Background    

Plaintiff Maria Aguayo (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff worked for Covina-Valley Unified School District (“District”) as a Secretary II. Plaintiff was retaliated against for her complaints about harassment, being subjected to a hostile work environment and not receiving overtime pay for all overtime hours she worked. Plaintiff was wrongly terminated on April 18, 2022.

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against District and Does 1-10 for:

1.               Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act

2.               Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5

3.               Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 98.6

4.               Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act 

The Final Status Conference is set for March 18, 2025. Trial is set for April 1, 2025.

Legal Standard

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); and see § 576 [“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order”].)

“[T]he trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading.” (Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135.) “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [quotation marks and citation omitted].) “[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Id. [quotation marks and citation omitted].) With that said, “the failure of a proposed amendment to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense may support an order denying a motion to amend.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280, disapproved of on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390)

Courts must apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, when no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) However, “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial    . . . denial may rest upon the element of lack of diligence in offering the amendment after knowledge of the facts, or the effect of the delay on the adverse party.” (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 940.)

“A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

Additionally, “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473, for leave to file her proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

Plaintiff represents that the proposed SAC adds claims for disability discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940(a), failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of Government Code § 12940(n), failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of Government Code Section 12940(m), failure to provide supplemental sick leave in violation of Labor Code Section 248.6, and retaliation for use of sick leave in violation of Labor Code Sections 246.5, 233 and 234. (Motion, 5:10-15).

The motion reflects sufficient compliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a) and (b). Plaintiff has provided the court with “clean” and “redline” versions of the proposed SAC and has identified the proposed amendments on pages 7 and 8 of the motion.

Plaintiff’s counsel Mazen Khatib (“Khatib”) represents that Plaintiff propounded written discovery requests to District on December 28, 2023 (Khatib Decl., ¶ 3); that District’s  discovery responses, provided March 5, 2024, cited “concerns with [Plaintiff’s] attendance” as District’s purportedly legitimate non-retaliatory reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. 3); that District produced Plaintiff’s attendance logs with its document production, which reflected that Plaintiff was absent for a period in February 2023 and also absent a few times in March 2023 (Id., ¶ 5); that the foregoing absences coincided with the dates of Plaintiff’s severe COVID illness (Id.); that Plaintiff’s former supervisor, Keith Kovach (“Kovach”), was deposed on April 2, 2024 (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. 4)[1]; that she received Kovach’s deposition transcript on May 3, 2024 (Id., ¶ 7) and that she unsuccessfully asked District’s counsel to stipulate to the filing of the proposed SAC on May 14, 2024 and May 21, 2024 (Id., ¶ 8, Exh. 5).

District asserts that it will be prejudiced if the instant motion were granted, because Kovach and Rod Zerbel, Director of Personnel Services, have already been deposed, such that it has been “depriv[ed]. . . of the opportunity to thoroughly and adequately prepare a defense to these . . . new legal theories.” (Opp., 2:8-11; see also, Huffman Decl., ¶¶ 2-4). Plaintiff, however, has specified that the proposed SAC was drafted in partial response to the testimony obtained from Kovach’s deposition regarding Plaintiff’s absences. Plaintiff has also specified that District raised the issue of Plaintiff’s work absences in the first instance, via its written discovery responses. Further, District fails to explain why it would be prejudiced by the fact that Zerbel has already been deposed, particularly given the fact that District would appear to have ready access to Zerbel as its own employee. 

District also asserts that “the proposed amendment will cause [it] to incur significant additional expenses to conduct discovery.” (Opp., 4:20-21). The foregoing statement, however, is unsupported.

The motion is granted. The proposed SAC is deemed filed and served as of the date of the instant hearing. The court declines District’s request, as a condition for granting the motion, that the April 1, 2025 trial date be continued for “at least” six months at this juncture.