Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 19STCV43571, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43571    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff Nargis Rashid (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Burgerim Group USA, Inc., Saffron Mediterranean Kitchen (“Saffron”), and Oren Loni.

On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging causes of action for (1) discrimination, (2) harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, (5) sexual harassment, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) declaratory judgment, (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (9) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records. 

Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the FAC. The motion is unopposed.    

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. ((Id., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” ((Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” ((Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Ibid.) Finally, 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)  

In his supporting declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel notes that on June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against a number of defendants. (Haddad Decl., ¶ 8.) On June 27, 2023, the Court issued a “Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk’s Judgment.” The June 27, 2023 Notice of Rejection states, inter alia, “Burgerim Group Inc.; Food Chain Investments Not named defendant on First amended complaint. Names not listed on First amended complaint caption.”

Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that on August 11, 2023, he served a Second Amended Complaint “on all Defendants other than Defendant Saffron.” (Haddad Decl., ¶ 12.)

 On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default against a number of defendants. Plaintiff’s September 25, 2023 Request for Entry of Default sought default on the “SAC 8/11/23.” (See Item 1(a) of Plaintiff’s September 25, 2023 Request.) On September 27, 2023, the Court issued a “Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk’s Judgment.” The September 27, 2023 Notice of Rejection states, inter alia, “[n]o order granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.” As set forth above, the operative complaint in this matter is the FAC.

Exhibit 11 to Plaintiff’s counsel’s supporting declaration is a “copy of the Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint, with redline revisions on page 1:12-24.” (Haddad Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 11.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11 does not appear to show any redline revisions. However, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he Amendment will neither add nor remove any allegations or causes of action. Rather, the amendment will merely revise the caption at page 1:12-24 to include those Defendants who were substituted in for Doe Defendants. Specifically, the caption will be revised to include Defendant BURGERIM GROUP, INC. and Defendant FOOD CHAIN INVESTMENTS USA, LLC.” (Haddad Decl., ¶ 15.) The Court notes that the caption page of the proposed Second Amended Complaint also lists “DOES 3 through 20” as defendants, while the FAC lists “DOES 1 through 20” as defendants. (See Haddad Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 11.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel further asserts that “[t]his amendment is necessary in order for Plaintiff to file a request for entry of default, as Plaintiff was instructed to do…The facts giving rise to amendment were discovered on June 20, 2023, when Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default was denied. Allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint will have the effect of allowing Plaintiff to be in compliance with the Notice of Default[1] and, therefore, allow Plaintiff to request entry of default against Defendants.” (Haddad Decl., ¶ 15.)

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint.¿ 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted. The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve the Second Amended Complaint within 3 days of the date of this Order.¿   

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.  

DATED:  February 26, 2024                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court