Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV22706, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22706    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 25, 2023               TRIAL DATE: December 12, 2023

CASE:                         Nada Shaath v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV22706           

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Nada Shaath

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation that was filed on June 17, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her race, religion, and national origin, retaliated against her for complaining about discrimination and for reporting unlawful activity, and that Defendant failed to prevent others from discriminating against and harassing her.

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to file a clean, stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint within five days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Legal Standard

The Court may, “in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1); see also § 576.) 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.

(CRC 3.1324.) This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) 

Contents of Motion

            Plaintiff included a clean copy of the proposed amended pleading as Exhibit 1 attached to the motion, as required by Rule 3.1324(a)(1). The motion expressly identifies the allegations to be added and deleted, and includes a redlined copy of the proposed pleading as Exhibit 2 which identifies each addition and deletion as it occurs relative to the original Complaint, as required by Rule 3.1324(a)(2) and (a)(3). Defendant’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1324(a).

Supporting Declaration

            The Declaration of Mary Jean Sumell filed in support of the Motion states that the effect of the amendments is to correct errors and omissions in the original Complaint and to allege facts supporting a claim for further retaliation arising from events that occurred in June and July2023. (Declaration of Mary Jean Sumell ISO Mot. ¶¶ 4-6, 11.) These statements also demonstrate why the amendments are necessary and proper. Plaintiff has therefore complied with Rule 3.1324(b)(1) and (b)(2). Further, by the same statements, Plaintiff has shown that the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered in between June 30 and July 26, 2023, when the alleged further retaliation transpired, and that amendment was not sought earlier because the facts were not known before that time. (Sumell Decl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff has therefore complied with Rule 3.1324(b)(3) and (b)(4) and has thus demonstrated compliance with Rule 3.1324 in its entirety.

Defendant’s Opposition

            Defendant argues in opposition that leave to amend should be denied because Plaintiff unjustifiably delayed seeking leave to amend, and because Defendant will be prejudiced by amending the Complaint to add new material allegations at this late date.

Defendant argues leave to amend should be denied because Plaintiff does not risk forfeiture of any cause of action. The Court is not persuaded. Under the primary rights doctrine, there is at least a colorable argument that Plaintiff must assert claims of subsequent retaliation in this action if she wishes to obtain relief, or else risk her new claims being barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (See Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 681-82.)

            Defendant also asserts that the motion is not supported by sufficient evidence because Plaintiff’s counsel lacks personal knowledge of the events described. The Court is again not persuaded. Plaintiff is not required to furnish the bulk of her evidence on a motion for leave to amend. What is more, such an objection only goes to the weight of the evidence, and the Court does not think it appropriate to deny the motion on this basis.

            Defendant next argues that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed by waiting “since June” to bring this motion. Defendant plainly mischaracterizes the factual contentions and allegations in the Complaint, which set forth additional events occurring on July 26, 2023 (see Exh. 1 ¶ 36), and further neglects Plaintiff’s obligation to exhaust her administrative remedies before adding new claims. Defendant offers no authority standing for the proposition that a delay of a single month constitutes good cause to deny leave to amend.

            Finally, Defendant argues that it has been unfairly prejudiced by Plaintiff seeking leave to amend so close to the date of trial to assert materially new and different allegations in the proposed First Amended Complaint. Defendant contends that it will be prejudiced unfairly because it has already pursued discovery based on the original allegations—alleging wrongful conduct in 2021—in the Complaint and filed its trial documents, including trial briefs, exhibit and witness lists, and motions in limine in April 2023 based on those contentions. Certainly, such a change in the nature of the case constitutes some prejudice to Defendant, who has litigated this case and prepared for trial based on Plaintiff’s allegations arising from events occurring in 2021. However, when the new allegations are based on events which only occurred in June and July 2023, after Defendant filed its trial documents, the Court cannot say that permitting amendment would constitute unfair prejudice to Defendant. The authorities cited by Defendant in support of their argument do not contradict this view, as they stand only for the position that amendment should not be permitted to add radically different claims arising from facts that were known to the plaintiff much earlier. (Melican v. Regents of Univ. of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-88.) The Court is therefore not persuaded that leave to amend should be denied on this basis.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to file a clean, standalone copy of the First Amended Complaint within five days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  September 25, 2023                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.