Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV02421, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02421    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff Fredy Vera Corona (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Exquisite Apparel Corp. and Affluent Staffing, LLC (“Affluent Staffing”) (jointly, “Defendants”). On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which asserts a single cause of action for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a Second Amended Representative Action Complaint. No opposition to the motion was filed.   

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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).)  

The instant motion includes a redlined copy of Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Representative Action Complaint for Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, which sets forth the proposed amendments. (Alami Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. B.) Plaintiff seeks to add additional factual allegations but does not seek to add any additional causes of action to the FAC. (Ibid.) Plaintiff indicates that he seeks to add the new factual allegations based on evidence produced by Defendants.

More specifically, in the proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add allegations providing, inter alia, that “Defendants regularly rounded down daily hours worked by Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to exactly eight (8) hours per workday, rounded down weekly hours to exactly 40 hours per workweek, and rounded up short meal periods to exactly 30 minutes, and during meal periods. Defendants also rounded to the nearest quarter hour.” (Alami Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. B, ¶ 25.) Plaintiff also seeks to add allegations that “Defendants also required Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees to attend training and orientation sessions without compensation,” that “Plaintiff’s and Aggrieved Employees’ meal periods were missed, interrupted, late, less than 30 minutes, and/or restricted to the worksite,” that “Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were not provided second meal periods when they worked in excess of 10 hours per workday,” and that “Plaintiff’s and Aggrieved Employees’ rest breaks were regularly missed, interrupted, less than 10-minutes, and/or restricted to the worksite.” (Alami Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. B, ¶¶ 25, 27, 28.) 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration from his counsel, who indicates that Affluent Staffing supplemented its document production on September 8, 2022. (Alami Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff states that Affluent Staffing’s “supplemental production identified 213 additional aggrieved employees covered by this representative PAGA action (an increase from 63 to 276 total employees) and included time and payroll records for these additional employees. Upon review and analysis of [Affluent Staffing’s] production for purportedly 276 total employees, Plaintiff discovered that the dates of employment were incorrect and the time and payroll production was incomplete.” (Alami Decl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he request for amendment was not made earlier because Defendants’ production was incomplete and a complete production may produce additional facts that would require further amendments. Further, the additional facts in the proposed SAC were recently discovered through Defendant [Affluent Staffing’s] production of documents, its PMK’s deposition testimony, and Plaintiff’s analysis of those records.” (Alami Decl., ¶ 13.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Representative Action Complaint is granted. The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve the Second Amended Representative Action Complaint within 3 days of the date of this Order. 

///

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  March 15, 2023                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court