Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01282835, Date: 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer

Defendant Will-Work, Inc. (“Will-Work”) demurs to the Second and Fifth through Thirteenth causes of action in the Complaint.

Will-Work was added to the pleading by way of Doe amendment. Will-Work is Doe 2. (ROA 33.) Will-Work demurs to every cause of action alleged against it on the grounds that the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action and that it is uncertain.

As to each cause of action alleged against it, Will-Work contends that the Complaint fails to allege any facts regarding Will-Work. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that it seeks to hold Will-Work liable under a theory of agency, aiding and abetting, conspiracy or joint venture as alleged in Paragraphs 11 and 15-18 of the Complaint. (Oppn. at 2:28-4:14.)

Under these theories, Will-Work could potentially be held liable for the acts of other Defendants.

CCP §425.10(a)(1) provides a Complaint shall include “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” Pursuant to Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, “a Plaintiff is required…to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a Defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Id. at 608.)

Here, Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that each of the Defendants was a joint venturer of the other Defendants, acted as agents of each other, conspired together, aided an assisted in carrying out the conspiracy, etc. (See Compl. ¶¶11 and 15-18.) However, the Complaint wholly fails to allege any facts as to Will-Work that would acquaint it with the nature, source and extent of each cause of action pleaded against it.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the Second and Fifth through Thirteenth causes of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend, for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

Motion to Strike

In light of the court’s ruling on the Demurrer, the Motion to Strike is MOOT.

Moving Party to give notice as to both the demurrer and motion to strike.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Cross-Complainant Jonathan Paul (“Cross-Complainant”) seeks leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of John D. Drdek. The proposed amended cross-complaint would add Tiffany Paul as an additional Cross-Complainant and Lisa Mullins as an additional Cross-Defendant. Additional causes of action for Whistleblower Retaliation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, several Labor Code violations, and Breach of Contract would also be added.

A party seeking leave to amend a pleading already at issue must seek leave of court by way of noticed motion.  (CCP §473(a)(1).)  The moving party must include the proposed amended pleading with the moving papers and specify, by page, paragraph and line number, the allegations proposed to be deleted and added.  In addition, the moving party must file a separate declaration which 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.) Cross-Complainant has satisfied these requirements. (See Tiffany Paul Decl. ¶¶9-13; Drdek Decl. Exhs. 1-2.).

Motions for leave to amend a pleading are directed to the sound discretion of the Court.  CCP §§ 473(a)(1) and 576. Courts may permit amendments at any stage in the proceedings, up to and including trial, so long there is no prejudice to the adverse party.  Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. Delay in requesting leave to amend is not good enough reason to deny leave unless the delay resulted in prejudice to the opposing party.  Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558; see also Miles v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 728, 739 (“the liberal policy favoring leave to amend applies only where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . [p]rejudice exists where the proposed amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in added costs of preparation and increased discovery burdens.”(internal citations omitted).

That it would make defending the case more difficult or expensive to defend is not sufficient prejudice: “it seems unreasonable to deny a party the right to amend where the only apparent hardship to the defendants is that they will have to defend.”  Landis v. Superior Court (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 548, 557.  

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. It is a “rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.”  Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428; see also Central Concrete Supply Co v. Bursak (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1101-1102 (“Courts must apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint when no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.”); and Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 (“If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.”).

Cross-Defendant ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) opposes the motion on the grounds that Cross-Complainant could have and should have asserted the claims earlier, and that Cross-Complainant will be prejudiced by the amendment because additional discovery and motion practice may be necessary, as well as consultation with experts.

The pleadings have not yet closed in this case and there is no trial date. ILYM has not otherwise shown any prejudice that will result from granting leave to amend. Allowing the amendment will further the judicial policy of resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. 

The motion is GRANTED. Cross-Complainant is ordered to file and serve the First Amended Cross-Complaint within ten (10) days.

Cross-Complainant to give notice.

The case management conference is continued to 10/5/2023 at 1:30 p.m.  Cross-Complainant to give notice of the continued CMC hearing.