Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV18591, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18591    Hearing Date: January 16, 2025    Dept: 50

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff Aprinelle Batiste (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Star Nursing Services, Inc. and Windsor Convalescent and Rehabilitation Center of Salinas, LLC.

On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 6310, (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) retaliation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, (4) discrimination, (5) harassment, (6) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (9) failure to reimburse necessary expenditures, (10) failure to permit inspection of personnel records, and (11) unfair and unlawful business practices. 

Plaintiff now moves for an order permitting the filing of a second amended complaint.  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. ((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.)

In her supporting declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel states, inter alia, that “[t]he proposed amended complaint removes a cause of action seeking restitution and or injunctive relief, clarifies Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest, and seeks to provide specific amounts for requested damages and additional information on how the amounts were calculated.” (Tsolakyan Decl., ¶ 2.) As an initial matter, the Court notes that the operative FAC does not appear to contain any cause of action for restitution and/or injunctive relief. In addition, the proposed second amended complaint does not appear to remove any cause of action from the FAC. (Tsolakyan Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 2.)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of the motion does not discuss “[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, subd. (b).) As set forth above, the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) are mandatory.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.   

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  January 16, 2025                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court