Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV16695, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV16695 Hearing Date: August 4, 2023 Dept: 50
|
VINCENT SMITH, Plaintiff, vs. PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
22STCV16695 |
|
Hearing Date: |
August 4, 2023 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT |
||
Background
Plaintiff Vincent Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on
May 20, 2022 against Defendants Palmdale School District (“the
District”), Edgar Ortega, Melissa Contri, and Larry Leuck. Plaintiff filed the
operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on March 15, 2023, asserting causes
of action for (1) racial harassment (hostile work environment) in violation of
FEHA, (2) racial discrimination in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in
violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
On July 5, 2023, the Court issued an order denying
Plaintiff’s previous motion for leave to file a third amended complaint,
without prejudice.
Plaintiff now moves again for leave to file an amended
complaint. The District opposes.
Discussion
Pursuant to
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).) Plaintiff submits the
declaration of his counsel in support of the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel states
that “[t]he
effect and purpose of the amendment is [sic] add two causes of action.”
(Okorocha Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]hese two causes of action were inadvertently left out of
the second amended complaint,
and thus explaining why they were not made before.” (Okorocha Decl., ¶ 4.) The
Court notes that Plaintiff does not clearly specify what “two causes of action”
he is referring to. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion
still does not “[s]tate 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(3).)
The Court notes that the proposed third amended complaint attached to
the motion alleges causes of action for (1) racial harassment (hostile work
environment) in violation of FEHA, (2) racial discrimination in violation of
FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of
public policy. As set forth above, the operative SAC alleges each of these
causes of action.
Plaintiff’s counsel also states in his declaration in support of the
motion that “¶¶41-48
and 56-68 of the proposed Third First [sic] Amended Complaint are necessary
here because they were part of the original allegations, and inadvertently left
out of the filed
2nd
Amended
Complaint.” (Okorocha Decl., ¶ 3.) The Court notes that paragraphs 41-48
of the proposed third amended complaint are contained in the third cause of
action for retaliation. Paragraphs 56-68 of the proposed third amended complaint are contained
in the fifth cause of action for wrongful termination.
As noted by the District, a
“Stipulation Re Dismissal of Causes of Action and Filing of Amended Complaint”
was filed on February 22, 2023 in this action indicating, inter alia,
that “Plaintiff
will dismiss the Third Cause of Action for Retaliation, the Fourth Cause
of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination, and the Fifth Cause of Action
for Wrongful Termination in their entirety as to all Defendants.” On February
22, 2023, the Court issued an Order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation
providing, inter alia, that “[t]he Third Cause of Action for
Retaliation, the Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination,
and the Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in their entirety as to
all Defendants, PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT, EDGAR ORTEGA, MELISSA
CONTRI, and LARRY LEUCK are dismissed.” The February 22, 2023 Order further
provides that “Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint with the remaining
causes of action, the First Cause of Action for Harassment and Second Cause of
Action for Discrimination, on or before February 17, 2023…”
As noted by the District,
notwithstanding the foregoing stipulation and Order, the SAC Plaintiff filed on
March 15, 2023 included a third cause of action for retaliation, a fourth cause
of action for failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation,
and a fifth cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public
policy. The District indicates that “[o]n March 23, 2023, Counsel for the District contacted
Plaintiff and advised Plaintiff of the issues,
directing
Plaintiff to the Court’s signed Order…” (Valencia Decl., ¶ 7.) Thereafter, on
March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice of
the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. Dismissal was entered on March
28, 2023.
Thus,
as noted by the District, the proposed third amended complaint includes the
three causes of action that Plaintiff dismissed. The District asserts that
there was accordingly “no inadvertence, no mistake, no newly discovered facts,
and therefore no basis for the amendment.” (Opp’n at p. 3:19-20.) Plaintiff
does not respond to this point in the reply.
Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration still does
not indicate “[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)(3)-(4).)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint is denied.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
DATED:
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court