Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV23104, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV23104 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 68
Dept.
68
Date:
11-13-24
Case:
23STCV23104
Trial
Date: Vacated
LIFT STAY & LEAVE TO AMEND
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff, Jahaira Ruiz
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendant, Pacific CCI, Inc.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
to Lift Stay and Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
On
September 25, 2023, Plaintiff Jahaira Ruiz filed a Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) complaint. On November 17, 2023, both Defendants, The Hoxton
(Downtown LA) LLC, and Ennismore International, USA, Inc., answered the
complaint.
On
January 9, 2024, the court entered the stipulation of the parties, whereby
binding arbitration would occur on the individual claim, and the case stayed as
to the non-individual claims.
On
September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases regarding Matus v.
Pacific CCI, Inc., et al., 24STCV08628, and Matus v. Pacific CCI, Inc., et al.,
24STCV14471. On September 19, 2024, the court declined to find the cases
related.
RULING: Denied without
Prejudice.
Plaintiff
Jahaira Ruiz moves to lift the stay and for leave to file a first amended
complaint. [Declaration of Raffi Tapanian, Exhibit, Ex. 1-2.] Plaintiff moves
to lift the stay pursuant to the terms of the stipulation and due to the lack
of any progress on the arbitration. Plaintiff moves for leave to amend in order
to remove all individual claims from the complaint and proceed solely in the representative
capacity. Defendants in opposition challenge the lack of statutory compliance
as to the motion for leave, the “new” claim under Labor Code section 2810.3 is
“time barred,” and Plaintiff’s own dilatory conduct in bringing the amended
complaint prejudices Defendants. Plaintiff in reply denies any time bar under
Labor Code section 2810.3. Plaintiff also offers extensive legal citation
regarding PAGA litigation standards in general.
The
motion itself consists of two paragraphs and the attached declaration of
counsel. Following the notice of motion, the entire points and authorities
states the following: “The Motion will be made pursuant to California Civil
Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a)(1) and is based on this Notice of Motion, the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the proposed First Amended Complaint, the
proposed order filed herewith, all of the files and records of this action, and
on any additional material that may be elicited at the hearing of the Motion.”
The
court reviews the standard.
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).
Plaintiff presents a copy of the proposed pleading, and a
second copy showing the changes. Nevertheless, as correctly noted in the
opposition, other than a statement for the relief from the stay, the
declaration of Tapanian lacks any address of the proposed amended complaint,
including the additional proposed allegation at paragraph 21, which states: “21.
REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF filed an amended PAGA Notice on May 20, 2024 which
added Labor Code 2810.3 and served the Amended PAGA Notice to all named DEFENDANTS
and to the LWDA in compliance with Labor Code section 2699.3.”
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 court declines to make the arguments for Plaintiff and
will not consider any late submitted arguments in the reply in that such
argument deprives Defendants of an opportunity to respond. The motion is
therefore denied without prejudice in that the court declines to address the
actual merits of any potential “time barred” claim in this procedurally
incomplete motion.
On the third position, regarding the timing, 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.)
While Plaintiff refences the case justification in the declaration, again, the
court declines to consider the timing given the lack of procedural sufficiency,
and challenge to the validity of the proposed addition. Again, the court will
not consider any submitted argument in the reply in order to seek rectification
of the minimal support provided in the motion. The court is therefore denied on
this basis as well.
Finally, even if the court found the leave argument in the
motion met the minimal standard, and no time bar to the proposed change, the
motion still lacks sufficient address of the stay. The court declines to
consider or make the arguments for Plaintiff regarding relief from the
stipulation compelling binding arbitration as to the individually identified
Plaintiff.
The motion is denied in its entirety without prejudice. The
case remains stayed.
Post arbitration status conference currently remains on
calendar for July 15, 2025.
Plaintiff to provide notice.