Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV17896, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17896 Hearing Date: September 23, 2024 Dept: 68
Dept. 68
Date:
9-23-24
Case
#23STCV17896
Trial
Date: 7-21-25 c/f 1-6-25
LEAVE TO AMEND
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff, The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc.
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendants, Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, et al.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Complaint
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiff The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc. doing
business as Healthy Living Foundation alleges Defendants Bumble Bee Foods, LLC,
Walmart Inc., Wal-Mart.Com USA, LLC, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, continue to
offer for sale and otherwise available to persons in California products
containing lead and cadmium above maximum established safety levels in
California Health and Safety Code provisions, and without warning to consumers
in violation of under California Proposition 65.
On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Violation
of Health & Safety Code § 25249.6, Failure to Provide Clear and Reasonable
Warning under Proposition 65. On January 22, 2024, Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Walmart
Inc., Wal-Mart.Com USA, LLC, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, answered the complaint.
RULING: Granted.
Request
for Judicial Notice: Granted.
Plaintiff
The Chemical Toxin Working Group
Inc. doing business as Healthy Living Foundation moves for leave to file
a first amended complaint in order to add new, additional defendants, an
additional product, and two new causes of action for statutory violations.
Plaintiff attaches a copy of the proposed first amended complaint. [Declaration
of Aida Poulsen, Ex. D.]
Defendants
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Walmart
Inc., Wal-Mart.Com USA, LLC, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, oppose the motion on
grounds that the motion seeks to evade the motion for judgment on the pleadings
currently scheduled for November 20, 2024. Defendants challenge the addition of
any new defendants as “fatally premature” in that the motion comes prior to the
expiration of the 60-day notice for claims served on July 23, 2024. Defendants further
maintain undue prejudice caused by the addition of new defendants prior the
claim deadline lapse. Defendants continue with claims of dilatory conduct given
the 10-month delay between the complaint and subject motion filing, violation
of the form requirements due to failure to sufficiently articulate the
additions, and denial of any prejudice to Plaintiff if leave to amend is
denied.
Plaintiff in reply denies any prematurity in
seeking leave to amend before the lapse of the 60-day deadline. The statute
only bars the filing of the complaint itself. Plaintiff denies any need to
correct defects in the “NOV” based on two prior (trial courts?) denial of
similar motions for judgment on the pleadings. Any defects in the notice of
intent to sue is not the proper subject matter within a motion for leave to
amend. Plaintiff denies any prejudice to Defendants. Finally, the motion
complies with all procedural requirements.
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.)
While the motion lacks clear articulation of all proposed
changes, Plaintiff sufficiently presents the proposed amendments well enough to
establish compliance with the Rules of Court provisions, especially when
referenced to the proposed first amended complaint. [Declaration of Aida
Poulsen, Ex. D.] Plaintiff seeks to add the additional defendants in order to
more efficiently address the specific products in a single action rather than
filing a new and separate complaint. The reason for the delayed addition of the
new defendants remains unexplained by Plaintiff, but Plaintiff represents the
parties seek to streamline all claims as to the Bumble Bee oysters sold by
Defendants.
Assuming the purpose for the amendment however is to evade
the motion for judgment on the pleadings and rectify alleged defects, as
presented by Defendants in opposition, such a basis in no way precludes
Plaintiff from seeking leave. The only bar would be a legal basis.
The motion for leave is not equivalent to a filing date of a
superseding pleading. Even assuming a filing date on the same date as the
hearing on the motion rather than a date after September 30, 2024, the court
declines to find the proposed amended complaint and addition of new defendants
constitutes a barred premature action in the subject motion. (See Malear v. State (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 213, 221-222;
Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor District (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th
211, 219, 221.) The court also questions Defendants standing to raise arguments
on behalf of unnamed defendants.
The court otherwise declines to
consider the arguments regarding the notice of defect violations raised in the
motion for judgment on the pleadings. Argument over violation of the notice
requirements is in no way readily determined within the confines of a motion
for leave to amend.
To the extent the delay in seeking leave was also prompted
by the served motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court also declines to
find prejudicial dilatory conduct. (Leader v. Health Industries of America,
Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Defendant can file and serve an
updated motion for judgment on the pleadings with sufficient time to prepare
for the July 21, 2025, trial date (set as a result of the parties’ stipulation
to continue the trial date). (See Magpali
v. Farmers Group, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 486-488; Huff
v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746.)
The motion is therefore granted. Plaintiff to separately
file the first amended complaint within 10 days of the order.
The motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for November 20,
2024, may be amended to reflect the new operative pleading in order to preserve
the hearing date. Any amended motion must still comply with all statutory
timely filing requirements. The court will also consider the impacts of the
addition of the new defendants upon their service and presumed appearance in
the action.
Plaintiff to provide notice.