Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV05760, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05760 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: 50
|
MELINDA MARIE CRUZ, Plaintiff, vs. REBLANDO LLC, et
al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
23STCV05760 |
|
Hearing Date: |
November 16, 2023 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
TENTATIVE RULING
RE: AMENDED MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT |
||
Background
On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff Melinda Marie Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed
this action against Reblando LLC, asserting causes of action for (1) failure to
produce personnel documents and records, and (2) failure to produce payroll
documents and records.
On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a previous Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Complaint. On October 5, 2023, the Court issued an Order denying
the motion without prejudice. The Court’s October 5, 2023 minute order
provides, inter alia, that “Plaintiff’s motion is denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff requests a continuance to correct the above deficiencies.
The Court grants said request. Pursuant to the request of plaintiff, the
Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint scheduled for 10/05/2023 is
continued to 11/16/23 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Plaintiff is to file Declaration no later than ten days before the hearing…”
On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for leave to
file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also filed an amended declaration of
Marcia Guzmán in support of the motion on October 25, 2023. The motion is
unopposed.
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’s counsel
attaches to her amended declaration a copy of the proposed First Amended
Complaint. (Guzmán Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. C.) Plaintiff also provides a redline
comparison of the proposed First
Amended Complaint compared to the original Complaint. (Guzmán
Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. B.)
The proposed First
Amended Complaint shows that Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to add
additional causes of action for (1)
retaliation in violation of Labor Code section
1102.5(b), (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (3)
intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) failure to pay overtime, (5)
failure to provide rest periods, (6) failure to provide meal periods, (7)
failure to pay earned wages, (8) failure to furnish compliant wage statements,
(9) waiting time penalties, and (10) unfair/unlawful/fraudulent business
practices. (Guzmán Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. B.) The proposed First Amended Complaint
also adds a number of factual allegations. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he effect of
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint…would be to add in the substantive
allegations and causes of action related to Plaintiff’s employment claims
against Defendant.” (Guzmán
Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that “[t]he amendment to the
complaint is necessary and proper in order for Plaintiff to enforce her
employment rights against Defendant. It is also in the interest of justice as
Plaintiff was forced to endure difficult working conditions, was retaliated
[sic], and was not paid properly [sic] suffering and being
damaged both emotionally and monetarily. Further, Defendant is not prejudiced
as the adding of the allegations were timely and proper.” (Guzmán Decl., ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he facts giving rise to
the amended complaint have been discovered throughout the representation of
Plaintiff by this firm until the filing of the initial Motion to Amend on
August 9, 2023; and investigation remains ongoing. It was Plaintiff’s hope to
have her personnel and payroll records prior to filing an FAC, but due to
Defendant’s Counsel advising they were not going to respond to the propounded
discovery which would have provided Plaintiff with her personnel and payroll
records, Plaintiff had to move forward with this Motion in order to amend and
include the known substantive allegations.” (Guzmán Decl., ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he request was not
submitted earlier than this date because Plaintiff was waiting to obtain her
personnel and payroll records as required by law. As stated above, Plaintiff
was unable to fully assess potential California Labor Code and/or common law workplace-based
violations by Defendant without those records.” (Guzmán Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s
counsel also states that “[a]fter Defendants filed an answer, based on
communication from the Defendant’s counsel it was believed that an early
resolution would potentially be feasible, so Plaintiff held off on amending in
order to save both sides costs and time, but once it became apparent that it
was not going to be feasible to settle at this juncture Plaintiff moved forward
with finalizing the FAC.” (Guzmán
Decl., ¶ 12.)
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 First Amended Complaint.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to file a
First Amended Complaint is granted. The Court orders Plaintiff to file and
serve the First Amended Complaint within 3 days of the date of this Order.¿
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.
DATED:
Hon. Rolf M.
Treu
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court