Judge: Stuart M. Rice, Case: 22STCV19884, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19884    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 1

Moving Party:             Defendant Luxurban Hotels, Inc.

Responding Party:       Plaintiff Zia Ahmed

Ruling:                        Motion for leave to file first amended answer is granted.

This is a wage-and-hour proposed class and Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) action.  Plaintiff Zia Ahmed (Plaintiff) alleges that he and others were employed by defendants O Hotel Management, Inc. and Luxurban Hotels, Inc., during which employment he and others were subjected to various violations of labor law.  Defendant Luxurban Hotels, Inc. (Defendant) moves to amend its answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) to assert additional affirmative defenses. 

Defendant’s counsel at Novian & Novian LLP avers that they were under the mistaken impression that the FAC had merely added Defendant as a party, rather than also including claims under PAGA, and that as a result, Defendant’s answer contained no PAGA-related defenses.  Counsel’s declaration furnishes good cause to grant the requested amendments.  Indeed, as Defendant points out, the stipulation it entered into with Plaintiff to file its answer provided that the FAC was filed “to add LUXURBAN HOTELS as a named defendant” and makes no mention of any additional PAGA claims. 

Plaintiff contends that the Court should not grant the motion to add affirmative defenses to the answer because affirmative defenses must be pled in the answer.  This argument is fallacious and without merit.  It is precisely because Defendant would otherwise be foreclosed from relying on the defenses in question that it seeks to add them to the answer.  Plaintiff’s contention that the request for amendment is being made “late” only demonstrates why the request must be made.  The answer in question was filed in October, and it appears that Defendant’s counsel raised the issue with Plaintiff’s counsel within 60 days or so.  (See Novian Decl., Ex. C.)  There is no indication any delay was prejudicial, and indeed, Plaintiff himself delayed roughly a year between filing the initial complaint and bringing Defendant into the case through the FAC.

Plaintiff’s contention that certain of the defenses are substantively lacking is a merits argument to be addressed, if at all, by a pleadings motion (that is, a demurrer to the answer).  Pleadings motions are subject to the pleadings conference requirement in the January 19, 2024 Case Management Order.  Demurrers to answers are also not a good use of attorney or court time, as the factual bases for any affirmative defenses can be probed through discovery, and meritless affirmative defenses pose little danger to Plaintiff.  The parties’ efforts are better spent in conferring with one another to move the case forward, whether to resolution or to disposition on the merits. 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is granted.  Defendant is to file its first amended answer forthwith.