Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV11401, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11401    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 8, 2025               TRIAL DATE: February 17, 2026

CASE:                         Brian Skajem v. Erickson-Hall Construction Co., et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV11401           

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Brian Skajem

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Erickson-Hall Construction Co., Erickson-Hall Holding Co., Steve Rogers, and Justin Sinnett

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on May 7, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a widespread and systematic practice of discriminating against Black employees, and that Plaintiff was harassed for opposing this practice. Plaintiff also alleges that he was harassed for having a disability.

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 to serve and file a stand-alone First Amended Complaint within ten (10) 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.

(Cal. Rules of Court rule 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 did not include a clean copy of the proposed amended pleading with the motion itself, but instead attached the proposed amendment to the Declaration of Nancy Abrolat accompanying the motion. (Declaration of Nancy Abrolat ISO Mot. Exh. 1.) Plaintiff has therefore substantially complied with Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(1). Further, Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion specifies the proposed alterations to the pleadings, and the Abrolat Declaration also includes a redline copy which clearly identifies the additions and deletions. (See Abrolat Decl. Exh. 2.) Plaintiff has therefore complied with subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Rule 3.1324 and demonstrated substantial compliance with the requirements for the motion itself under Rule 3.1324(a).

Supporting Declaration

            The supporting declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Nancy Abrolat, sets forth the effect of the proposed amendments as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(1). According to counsel, the effect of the amendment is to add additional facts, name a new individual Defendant who is alleged to be the primary harasser, and assert a new cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 970. (Abrolat Decl. ¶ 4.)  The supporting declaration explains why the proposed amendments are necessary and proper, as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(2), indicating they were necessary to address issues raised by Defendants during an exchange in which a demurrer was threatened.  (Abrolat Decl. ¶ 5.) While defense counsel denies any discussions about demurrers after the Answers were filed, she does not describe any discussions that may have occurred before Defendants answered. Further, defense counsel acknowledges that she had a late October 2024 meet-and-confer call with Plaintiff’s counsel in which Defendants’ attorney challenged the propriety of the Complaint’s allegations, including whether individual defendants Justin Sinnett and Steve Rogers should be dismissed from the action.  (Golob Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)  Ms. Golob also relates that Plaintiff’s counsel asked whether Defendants would stipulate to an amended complaint on December 6, 2024, but no agreement was reached.  (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.)  When Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on December 4, 2024, without leave to do so, the Court ordered it stricken on December 19, 2024.  (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. B.)

While the declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney is lacking in specifics, it adequately conveys that counsel’s autumn discussions about which defendants should be named in the Complaint led to Plaintiff’s recognition that the proposed amendment was necessary and to subsequent unsuccessful efforts to seek an amendment by stipulation in December and then via this motion to amend filed on March 25, 2025.  The Court finds this showing satisfies the requirements of Rule 3.1324(b). 

Plaintiff having met the procedural requirements, the Court must exercise its discretion liberally to permit amendment, unless unreasonable delay in seeking amendment has caused prejudice to the defendant. (Payton v. CSI Elec. Contractors, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 832, 849.)  In this case, although a few months passed between Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a stipulated amendment and the filing of this motion, the Court does not find this to be an unreasonable delay.  Moreover, the Court rejects Defendants’ suggestion that it would be prejudiced by any amendment.  It has only been about six months since the last defendant answered, and defense counsel have known the specific nature of the requested amendments since early December 2024, when they were served with the First Amended Complaint Plaintiff seeks to have accepted for filing.  Defendant also challenges the legal sufficiency of the added claims, but such an attack is better advanced by way of a demurrer or other available motion.  (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 760 [reversing a motion to amend the complaint on the eve of trial, appellate court explained: “the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”].)   

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is to serve and file a stand-alone First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 8, 2025                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.