Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV11735, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11735    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Daevin Simon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on May 9, 2024 against Defendants Plan LBC, Inc. and Michael Aminpour (jointly, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) employment discrimination, (2) retaliation, (3) hostile work environment,

(4) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (5) failure to pay overtime wages, (6) failure to provide meal and rest periods, (7) failure to reimburse employee expenses, (8) failure to provide accurate wage statements, and (9) unfair business practices. 

            Plaintiff now moves for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendants oppose.

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. ((Id., § 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. (¿Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd¿. (a).) 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 the notice of motion, Plaintiff states that “[i]n general, the proposed amendments will add two causes of action and one new party— individual Edwin Benyamini—with supporting factual allegations, based on recently obtained evidence in discovery.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:3-6.) In the opposition, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s moving papers are deficient under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. The Court agrees.

Plaintiff’s counsel provides a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint. (Diaz Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel 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).) In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel does not “[s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(2).) Plaintiff also does not provide any redlined version of the proposed First Amended Complaint showing the changes made to the original Complaint.

In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel’s supporting declaration does not specify “[t]he effect of the amendment,” “[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, subd. (b).) As set forth above, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) is mandatory.

In the opposition, Defendants also contend that “Plaintiff’s proposed amendment to his complaint is futile as it relies entirely upon an Arbitration Agreement that has not been enforced by Defendants.” (Opp’n at p. 7:24-25.) To the extent Defendants are arguing that this makes the allegations of the proposed First Amended Complaint deficient, the Court notes that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) Defendants also argue that “Plaintiff’s proposed amendment fails to plead allegations of fraud with specificity as required by California law.” (Opp’n at p. 8:22-23.) As discussed, “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.)

Defendants also argue that they “will suffer prejudice if leave to amend is granted.” (Opp’n at p. 8:1.) Defendants assert that they “will be required to expend even more time and costs investigating [the] additional allegations, responding to Plaintiff’s anticipated set(s) of written discovery requests, and propounding additional written discovery to Plaintiff. Furthermore, the scope of expert discovery will broaden…” (Opp’n at p. 8:3-6.) The Court notes that Defendants do not appear to provide any evidence to support their assertion that they will be prejudiced if leave to amend is granted.

But in any event, as set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion does not

satisfy requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a) and (b). Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is denied without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.¿¿ 

DATED:  January 24, 2025                           

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court