Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV01679, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01679    Hearing Date: December 11, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 12-11-24 (specially set)                                                      

Case: 2STCV01679

Trial Date: 4-28-25 c/f 1-21-25 c/f 9-23-24 c/f 7-22-24

LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Kaiser, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Susan Barrera

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Susan Barrera was employed as a licensed vocational nurse with Defendant Kaiser, et al. Plaintiff alleges Defendant and co-employee Patricia Roman regularly threatened Plaintiff with physical violence. After complaining to management about the conduct of Roman, Plaintiff was involuntary transferred to another facility and ultimately terminated.

On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Wrongful Termination In Violation of Public Policy 2. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5 3. Assault 4. Negligence, and 5. Negligence Per Se. Defendants answered the complaint from March 14, 2023, through May 22, 2023.

RULING: Granted.

Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, The Permanente Federation LLC, The Permanente Medical Group, Inc, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and, Patricia Roman, (Kaiser) move for leave to file a first amended answer to the complaint in order to add new affirmative defenses, for judicial estoppel and collateral estoppel, along with additional facts to the already pled affirmative defense of Estoppel//Unclean Hands. Plaintiff also seeks to remove/strike the affirmative defenses on the statute of limitations, laches, and after acquired evidence. The court concurrently set the six individually filed motions for the same hearing date. Plaintiff filed six separate oppositions to all motions. Given the exact relief sought in all six motions, the court consolidates the motions into a single order.

The motion comes following discovery of a workers’ compensation award decision, whereby Plaintiff recovered against an unrelated employer following an alleged altercation with a co-employee, thereby leading to injuries. Defendants maintain the information was discovered in response to discovery and through subpoenas from April to June 2024. Defendants deny any prejudice.

Plaintiff in opposition contends the motion fails to comply with the requirements for leave to amend, due to the failure to establish diligence in bringing the motion at an earlier date and inexcusable delay. The motion comes 19 months after the initially filed answers in March 2023. Plaintiff challenges any collateral estoppel claim based on the workers’ compensation proceeding. Plaintiff maintains the motion lacks procedural compliance. Finally, Plaintiff asserts prejudice as a result of potentially allowing an entirely new defense following the completion of multiple depositions and other discovery. Defendants in four separate filed replies in reply reiterate the extensive discovery efforts undertaken, and maintains the proposed changes are factually supported. Defendants deny any bad faith or improper timing. Defendants additionally deny any prejudice, and characterizes the challenge as relying on speculation. Finally, Defendant emphasizes the factual propriety of the proposed defenses.

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 declaration of Jason Avelar sufficiently complies with the statutory requirements. Plaintiff raises a valid concern with the delay between the time of the answer to the filing of the instant motions, but the court finds no demonstrated dilatory conduct as a result of only allegedly discovering the subject information following the depositions and document review from April to June 2024. Further discovery was propounded on August 9, 2024, as result of the document review, and immediate efforts were made to stipulate for an amended answer. The motion was filed on August 13, 2024. The court finds the circumstances in no way violate the diligence requirement.

On the validity of the amendment, while Defendants characterize the amendment as only adding new facts, Defendants in fact seek to add new defenses for judicial estoppel and collateral estoppel to the otherwise only basically pled “estoppel/unclean hands” affirmative defense.  While the factual allegations regarding the workers’ compensation claim clearly relate to the subject defenses, the motion still under-articulates the basis of the request.

Notwithstanding, the court finds no facially legal bar to the affirmative defense for purposes of denying relief under this part of the standard for leave to amend. The court declines to engage in factual determination for the basis of the potential defenses based simply on the additional factual claims in the proposed amended pleading regarding the workers’ compensation award. (See Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 897; Gikas v. Zolin (1993) 6 Cal.4th 841, 848–849.)

The court generally favors robust adjudication of claims, and tends to favor leave to amend, where the changes will not materially impact the adjudication of the underlying action. Even then if sufficient time to respond to the proposed changes exists, the court allows leave. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-487; Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)

In considering prejudice, the court finds the motions and replies glib denials of prejudice minimally addresses the valid concerns raised by Plaintiff regarding already completed discovery. Plaintiff represents completing extensive discovery in preparing the case for trial, and the necessity of reopening discovery to address this defense. Defendants admit to propounding additional discovery as a result of the document review, and filed the motion before any responses were apparently served. It continues to remain unclear from the replies, as to how much additional discovery would be required however given the existence of the workers’ compensation ruling and prior discovery on the subject action. Defendants only dismiss the additional discover discussion as “irrelevant” and “speculative,” and maintain any estoppel analysis only depends on the claims of Plaintiff rather than supervisor and colleague discovery. Defendants otherwise offer no specific guidance as to any proposed, necessitated discovery other than an implicit intent to potentially seek a second deposition session with Plaintiff.

Again, while the incorporation of these defenses can in fact lead to significant if not completely preclude some or all of the claims presented, the court adheres to its policy of full adjudication of claims. The trial date remains five months away and the court entered the parties’ stipulation extending all discovery deadlines to the new trial date on December 5, 2024, thereby altering the prior August 23, 2024, minute order fixing the cutoffs to the prior trial date.

Given the presumed findings and order of the Workers’ Compensation court which may impact the adjudication of the subject action, the court finds any new potential discovery, including new deposition sessions of certain witnesses on the specific issue of the workers’ compensation claims relative to the instant case, justifies potential, limited discovery. The impacts and importance to the proper adjudication of the action outweigh any potential claims of prejudice on the narrowly examined topic only discovered upon diligent review of the responses.

The court therefore finds support for leave to amend. The motion is therefore GRANTED.

Trial remains set for April 28, 2024.

Defendants to provide notice.