Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV38730, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38730    Hearing Date: February 5, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff John Chou (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 20, 2021 against Defendants Air Tiger Express (USA) Inc. (“ATE”) and Matthew Tran. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) discrimination on the basis of age, (2) harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On January 21, 2022, ATE filed an Answer to the Complaint.

ATE now moves or an order granting ATE leave to file a first amended answer. Plaintiff opposes.[1]

Discussion

In the motion, ATE states that it “seeks leave to file an Amended Answer pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1).” (Mot. at p. 3:3-4.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides that “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

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 (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), emphasis added.) 

ATE provides a redlined copy of ATE’s proposed amended answer. (Pelochino Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) ATE’s proposed amended answer adds a Thirty-Fifth Affirmative Defense alleging, “Defendant alleges that it would have taken the same adverse employment action(s) against Plaintiff in any event, irrespective of any discrimination or retaliatory motive, which Defendant denies.” (Pelochino Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A, ¶ 35.) In his supporting declaration, ATE’s counsel states that “[m]ore than six months ago, in June 2024, ATE advised all parties and this Court that it intended to assert a Same Decision defense at trial, and set forth its affirmative defense in its proposed jury instructions and proposed verdict forms filed with the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to object to ATE’s assertion of the defense in advance of the prior trial date.” (Pelochino Decl., ¶ 2.) ATE argues that “[a]mendment is necessary to allow ATE to raise an additional potential defense against Plaintiff’s claims in which Plaintiff seeks the recovery of substantial damages.” (Mot. at p. 3:1-3.)

As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that ATE’s motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b). ATE’s counsel’s supporting declaration does not specify “[w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper,” “[w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered,” or “[t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (b)(2), (b)(3)-(4).) As set forth above, the requirements of ¿California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b)¿ are mandatory. ATE does not appear to show that this rule does not apply to the instant motion.

Plaintiff also argues that “Defendants’ [sic] motion makes clear that Defendants [sic] now move to amend not because of the discovery of new facts.” (Opp’n at p. 8:14-15 [emphasis omitted].) Plaintiff points to paragraph 3 of ATE’s counsel’s declaration, which provides that “ATE’s assertion of the same decision affirmative defense is not based on any new or different evidence than its previously asserted defenses to Plaintiff’s claims – namely its legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for Plaintiff’s layoff.” (Pelochino Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also argues that ATE does not provide any explanation for its delay in bringing the instant motion. In the reply, ATE does not appear to address its purported delay in bringing the instant motion.

Plaintiff also asserts that “amendment at this late stage in the litigation prejudices Plaintiff.” (Opp’n at p. 12:2.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “Plaintiff has had no opportunity to conduct any discovery or address any of the issues which may flow from the purported amended and added affirmative defense.”  (Denis Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel also asserts that “[i]f this Court grants Defendants’ request for leave to amend their answer, Plaintiff will be forced to once again depose the same individuals already deposed, and likely other witnesses…significantly increasing the cost and expense of this litigation.” (Denis Decl., ¶ 5.) However, as noted by ATE, Plaintiff does not appear to “identify [any] factual issue, deposition question, fact or witness he could or would have asked or pursued had [the] additional affirmative defense been set forth in Defendant’s answer.” (Reply at p. 4:7-9.)[2]

In any event, in light of ATE’s failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b)¿, the Court denies ATE’s motion for leave to file an amended answer, without prejudice.

Conclusion    

Based on the foregoing, ATE’s motion for leave to file an amended answer is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.¿ 

DATED:  February 5, 2025                      ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court