Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 18STCV07560 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 18STCV07560, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV07560 Hearing Date: October 5, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: October 5, 2022 TRIAL DATE: February 14, 2023

CASE: Victor Hugo Martinez v. Lom Property Corporation, et al.

CASE NO.: 18STCV07560

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Lom Property Corporation and Fluirse, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of 10/3/22

CASE HISTORY:

· 12/07/18: Complaint filed.

· 06/12/19: Amendment to Complaint correcting fictitious name.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for wage and hour violations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all of his wages owed, failed to provide meal and rest periods and to pay overtime, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to reimburse work expenses, and failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements.

Defendants move for leave to file a Second Amended Answer.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants move for leave to file a Second Amended Answer

Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).) Amendments of pleadings may be permitted up to and during trial, absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Judicial policy favors liberal exercise of the discretion to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Royal Thrift & Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 24, 41-42.) Absent prejudice to the Defendants, a denial of leave to amend is an abuse of discretion. (Kittridge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) At the same time, “if a party seeking amendment has been dilatory and/or the delay has prejudiced or will prejudice the opposing party, the trial court in its discretion may deny leave to amend.” (M&F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Ins. Managers, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1509, 1534.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must meet the following requirements:

(a) Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State 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; and

(3) State 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.

(b) Supporting declaration

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.)

Contents of Motion

Defendants included a copy of the proposed Amended Answer with the motion. (Defendant Exh. A.) Defendants have therefore substantially complied with California Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(1).

Defendants’ motion does not indicate which allegations are proposed to be added or deleted by page, paragraph, and line number, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(2) and (a)(3). However, the motion states that the only amendment sought is to assert an additional affirmative defense of “Setoff/Offset” as the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense. (Defendants’ Exh. A.) This is the only revision that is proposed or identified in any of the moving papers, and is sufficient to put the Court and all parties on notice of the proposed revisions and their effects. The Court therefore finds that Defendants have substantially complied with Rules of Court 3.1324(a)(2) and (a)(3).

Supporting Declaration

The Declaration of Attorney Dean G. Thompson accompanying the motion does not clearly state the effect of the amendments, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(1). However, the Declaration does state that Defendants seek to amend the answer to include the defense of Setoff/Offset. (Declaration of Dean G. Thompson ISO Mot. ¶ 3.) Defendants have therefore substantively complied with Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(1).

The declaration provides little detail as to why the new amendments are necessary and proper, as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(2). The only explanation Defendants offer is that the First Amended Complaint contains allegations regarding underpayment that can be defended by the proposed affirmative defense. (Thompson Decl. ¶ 3.) In light of the strong presumption in favor of leave to amend, the Court finds that Defendants have substantively complied with Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(2) by offering this explanation.

The declaration does not sufficiently explain when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(3). The Declaration states that this amendment is in response to allegations added in the First Amended Complaint. (Thompson Decl. ¶ 3.) However, Plaintiff’s only amendment to the Complaint was an amendment to replace a Doe defendant with Defendant Fluirse, LLC. (June 12, 2019 Amendment to Complaint.) The substantive allegations in the Complaint have remained unchanged since this case was filed in 2018. Under these facts, Defendants’ assertions are not sufficiently detailed to provide a satisfactory explanation under Rule 3.1324(b)(3)

Defendants offer no explanation whatsoever as to why the request for amendment was not made earlier, in violation of Rule 3.1324(b)(4). Defense counsel merely states that he did not delay in seeking this order. (Thompson Decl. ¶ 5.) The Court disagrees. The Complaint, containing the substantive allegations in this case, was filed in 2018. Defendant Lom Property Corporation answered the Complaint in April 2019 and amended its answer in August 2019. Defendant Fluirse, LLC was added to this action in June 2019 and answered the Complaint on December 31, 2020. Defendants offer no justification for a delay of more than a year and a half to amend the answer. Even under the strong presumption in favor of leave to amend an answer, the Court cannot overlook a complete failure to justify such a delay.

In isolation, no single defect in the instant motion would be sufficient to justify denial of leave to amend. However, the motion here contains numerous procedural defects and offers no justification for a delay of over a year and a half to seek leave to amend. In light of these defects, and, in particular, in light of Defendants’ dilatory conduct, the Court finds that leave to amend the answer is not warranted in this case.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.