Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 20TRCV00947, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 20TRCV00947, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00947 Hearing Date: January 2, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 2, 2024¿¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 20TRCV00947

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Chantal Kairouz v. Maison Chicken, Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Chantal Kairouz

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Maison Chicken, Inc., Top Tenders, Inc., Top Tenders 2, Inc., Mediterranean Maison, Inc., dba Chicken Maison Inc.

TRIAL DATE: February 26, 2024

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Leave of Court to File Third Amended Complaint

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff, Chantal Kairouz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Maison Chicken, Inc., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 30. On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants, Maison Chicken, inc., Top Tenders, Inc., Top Tenders 2, Inc., Mediterranean Maison, Inc., dba Chicken Maison Inc., and DOES 4 through 30. The SAC alleges causes of action for: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Wages When Due; (3) Failure to Pay Wages Immediately Upon Termination; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (6) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; and (7) Failure to Provide Wage Statement.

Plaintiff now files a Motion for Leave to file Third Amended Complaint.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion Leave of Court to File Third Amended Complaint. On December 18, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS¿¿

¿¿

A. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

B. Discussion

Here, the Court’s tentative ruling is to DENY the Motion for Leave to Amend because Plaintiff fails to identify what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. Plaintiff’s proposed amendments seek to take this case from a wage and hour dispute between one Plaintiff, to a PAGA representative suit. Plaintiff’s moving motion notes that at the deposition of defendants’ PMK, Plaintiff’s counsel determined that the facts pleaded in the complaint supported additional legal theories that were not plead in the SAC. However, neither the motion or Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration indicate exactly what facts or evidence that might be. Further, Plaintiff’s argument in its reply brief does not help this issue. Plaintiff notes that at the deposition of defendants’ PMK, it was clear to counsel that the purported PMK was not qualified to respond to plaintiff’s questions and the deposition was terminated. This indicates to the Court that no new meaningful evidence was discovered by the deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of leave to amend also fails to comply with the California Rules of Court as it does not specify the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery, and reason for delay.

The Court will entertain oral argument as to whether it can file a supplemental briefing and declaration could cure such defects, likely conditioned on vacating the trial date.