Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV12632, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12632 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 68
Dept.
68
Date:
7-17-24
Case:
23STCV12632
Trial
Date: 11-4-24
LEAVE TO AMEND
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff, Tsleel Escappa
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendants, Hi-Tech Builders, Inc., et al.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiff
Tsleel Escappa alleges an employment period with Defendant Hi-Tech Builders
from October 26, 2021, through February 10, 2022. Plaintiff alleges a fixed
salary, plus a commission system for any “leads.” Plaintiff alleges an
entitlement and demand to a commission for a certain project led to his
termination. When Plaintiff returned to payment, Plaintiff alleges a
significantly reduced amount from the entitled commission.
On
June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a five cause of action wage and hour and breach
of contract complaint. Defendants Hi-Tech Builders and David Lahyani answered
the complaint on November 29, 2023.
RULING: Granted.
Plaintiff
Tsleel Escappa moves for leave to file a first amended complaint in order to
add nine (9) new causes of action for Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab.
Code § 98.6; Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5; Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 118.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197;
Wage Statement Penalties in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; Waiting Time
Penalties in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203; Failure to Reimburse
Necessary Business Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; Unfair
Competition in Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; Failure to
Provide Written Commission Agreement in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2751; and
Failure to Timely Pay Earned Commission in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 204.
Plaintiff also seeks to add extensive new facts within the introductory
paragraphs and existing causes of action. Plaintiff provides a proposed copy of
the amended complaint. [Declaration of Declaration Allen Simanian, Ex. 1.]
Defendants
Hi-Tech Builders and David Lahyani in opposition challenge the motion as both
prejudicial and in violation of Evidence Code Section 1119. More specifically,
Defendants challenge the new wage and hour claims as derived from a mediation
session given the admission to the lack of any discovery. Plaintiff in reply maintains
the facts supporting leave were only discovered on March 19, 2024, and denies
any prejudice to Defendants.
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…” (emphasis added).
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 motion comes more than 11 months after June 2023 filing
of the complaint. Other than a recitation of the changes, the motion itself
lacks any accounting for the timing of the motion. [Simanian Decl.] Plaintiff
vaguely states in the reply that the changes were prompted by the discovery of
information “coinciding” with the timing of the mediation, without specifically
admitting to “gleaning” any information from said proceedings. Plaintiff
provides no elaboration on the source. Other than the source of the
information, however, Defendants raise no prejudicial argument as to the
delayed timing of the motion itself. The court therefore accepts the timing of
the motion for purposes of the first threshold of the standard.
As for the source of the information itself, the court cites
to Evidence Code section 1119.
Except as
otherwise provided in this chapter:
(a) No evidence of
anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or
pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation is admissible or subject
to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in
any arbitration, administrative adjudication, civil action, or other
noncriminal proceeding in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled to
be given.
(b) No
writing, as defined in Section
250, that is prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a
mediation or a mediation consultation, is admissible or subject to discovery,
and disclosure of the writing shall not be compelled, in any arbitration,
administrative adjudication, civil action, or other noncriminal proceeding in
which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled to be given.
(c) All
communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between
participants in the course of a mediation or a mediation consultation shall
remain confidential.
Evid.
Code, § 1119
While the court acknowledges the authority, the court cannot
consider said extrinsic reference for purposes of determining the validity of
the proposed complaint. The court cannot determine that any and all of the
proposed amendments exclusively and entirely relies on privileged, inadmissible
information. Therefore, nothing in the presented proposed pleading presents a
claim barred as a matter of law. The court therefore finds no legal basis for
denial of the motion on this ground. The purported source of information may be
challenged by Defendants in subsequent, evidentiary based law and motion.
Finally, because the changes arise
from the common core of facts and otherwise adds no substantial material change
to the underlying action, the court finds no showing of significant prejudice
to Defendant. Defendants will have sufficient time to address the claims
against them. Any potential claimed prejudice insufficiently outweighs the
liberal policy for leave to amend. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group,
Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-487; Hulsey v. Koehler (1990)
218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.) Again, the court also finds none of the proposed
changes constitute an invalid amendment as a matter of law for purposes of the
subject motion. When and how responding parties chose to respond will be
addressed in due course.
The motion is therefore granted. Moving
party to file a separate copy of the first amended complaint within 10 days of
the order.
Trial currently scheduled for November 4, 2024.
Plaintiff to provide notice
.