Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00093, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00093    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-18-22

Case #21CHCV00093

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Nicole Auceda

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, Granada Hills Convalescent Hospital, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to File a Representative Action

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On Febrary 9, 2021, Plaintiff Nicole Auceda filed a PAGA action for wage and hour violations. On May 11, 2021, the clerk entered a default. On October 22, 2021, the court granted the unopposed motion to vacate the default.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Nicole Auceda moves for leave to file a first amended complaint in order to bring a representative (PAGA) action. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A motion for leave to amend must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, which states as follows:

“(a)      Contents of motion

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.

(b)        Supporting declaration

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…”

Dilatory delays and prejudice to the opposing parties is a valid ground for denial. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a); Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) The court will not generally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave, instead deferring such determinations for a demurrer or motion to strike, unless the proposed amendment fails to state a valid claim as a matter of law. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1045, 1048; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280–281 disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

The declaration in support of the motion provides no explanation for the timing of the motion. [Declaration of Daniel Gaines.] The declaration of Gaines incorporates a draft of the changes. [Id., Ex. A-B.]

The court finds no legal bar to the action in that Plaintiff complied with the pre-filing notice requirements to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, and waited the statutory period of time for notice from the agency. The court also finds no bar, due to a lack of standing from representative plaintiff Auceda  Given the lack of opposition to the proposed changes, the court finds no showing of prejudice as a result of the amended pleading.

The motion is therefore granted. Plaintiff is ordered to separately file the first amended complaint within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.