Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 22STCV21896, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Rouben Davoodian brings this action against Defendant RBR Automotive Parts, Inc., and its alleged owners, directors, officers, or managing agents, Razmik and Sadik Davoodian. Plaintiff alleges he made a 50% initial investment to purchase a parcel of land and the corporation RBR Automotive Parts, Inc., located on the same parcel. Defendants Razmik and Sadik Davoodian covered the other 50%. Defendants informed Plaintiff that he owned half of the property and 50,000 shares of the company.

Plaintiff then worked as an employee for Defendants during which Defendants allegedly violated numerous provisions of the Labor Code. Defendants have also failed to recognize Plaintiff as an owner of the property or business.

A Standalone First Amended Complaint must be filed and served to all current parties within 10 days consistent with this Ruling.,

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

If a plaintiff wishes to amend a complaint after the answer has been filed or after the demurrer has been filed and after the hearing on the demurrer, or if he or she has already amended the complaint “of course,” permission of the court must be obtained before the amendment will be allowed. (CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1); see CCP § 576.) Policy favors liberally granting leave to amend so that all disputed matters between the parties may be resolved. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Absent prejudice to the adverse party, the court may permit amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [internal quotes omitted].)

Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; see also Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490). An opposing party is prejudiced where the amendment would necessitate a trial delay along with a loss of critical evidence, added preparation expense, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)

Plaintiff asserts he learned during discovery that “Defendants had failed to not only pay Plaintiff but other employees full and property overtime wages due and another property was quit claimed from Plaintiff to Razmik without any consideration.” (Mtn. 5: 14-16.) Plaintiff contends he “only recently became aware of the majority of the individual claims upon review of documentation recently produced by Defendants during discovery, as well as upon conducting further investigation and discovery.” (Mtn. 2: 16-18.) Plaintiff asserts there is no prejudice to Defendants because discovery is ongoing, trial is about seven months away, and Plaintiff would be open to a short trial continuance” if necessary. (Id. 4: 24-26.)

The proposed amendment adds multiple causes of action for failure to provide COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Days, failure to provide sick days, misclassification of employees, retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, hostile work environment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA, failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of FEHA, and a representative cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act.

Defendant opposes leave to amend. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion “is inexcusably late, will cause prejudice to Defendants, invariably delay trial well into 2025, increase the cost of preparation, increase the burden of discovery, and is an attempt to circumvent the statute of limitations.” (Opp. 5: 1-3.)

Here, the court finds good cause for granting leave to amend. First, while there may be a reasonable question as to when Plaintiff learned the facts underling the new claims—and whether Plaintiff acted diligently after discovering them—there is no evidence that Defendant unreasonably delayed in seeking leave to amend, or that the delay was done in bad faith.

Second, Plaintiff has demonstrated the discovery of new facts justifying the new causes of action. This court is mindful that the new allegations may expand the scope of the case. But the fact that the amendment may necessitate further discovery and delay is not reason to deny the motion. Courts have explained that “it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments ‘relate to the same general set of facts.’ [Citation.]” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp., (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 761.)

For similar reasons, Defendant cannot reasonably claim it will be unduly prejudiced if Plaintiff is given leave to amend. Discovery is ongoing, and sufficient time remains before the trial date to explore the new allegations. This conclusion is consistent with the “policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits.” (Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Ct. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1163.)

Finally, the court need not address the veracity of the new claims at this time. Instead, the “better course of action” is to permit the amendment, “and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 760.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. A standalone First Amended Complaint must be filed and served to all current parties within 10 days consistent with this Ruling.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.