Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV38489, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38489    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff Jesus Lopez filed this action.  On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants DCW Logistics Services Inc., Alejandro Rodriguez, Matteo Mevlut Kirisci, and Henry Mandil (collectively, “FAC Defendants”), alleging (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide required meal periods; (4) failure to provide required rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) unfair competition; (7) failure to produce employment file; (8) failure to provide wage records; (9) harassment; and (10) retaliation.

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of related case, identifying Case No. 20STCV38647 (Ramon Antonio Anguiano v. DCW Logistics Services, Inc. et al., filed October 7, 2020) and Case No. 20STCV38599 (Carlos Montealegre v. DCW Logistics Services, Inc., et al., filed October 7, 2020).  On October 31, 2022, the Court issued an order finding that this case and Case No. 20STCV38647 (Anguiano) are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the FAC to add new parties.

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)  “ ‘[E]ven if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.’ ” (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486 (Record), quoting Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939-940.)

Plaintiff does not provide a supporting declaration, but Plaintiff includes a copy of the proposed second amended complaint (“SAC”).  (Motion, Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff seeks to add Ramon Anguiano as a plaintiff and DCW Logistics LLC as a defendant.

The proposed amendment shows that Plaintiff Lopez and proposed-plaintiff Ramon Anguiano have different claims.  Plaintiff admits that “Mr. Ramon Anguiano does not seek to recover against the individual defendants named in the present action.  Likewise, Plaintiff Jesus Lopez does not seek to recover against DCW Logistics LLC, but that both Mr. Jesus Lopez and Mr. Ramon Anguiano seek to recover against DCW LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC.”  (Motion at p. 4.)  The proposed SAC’s first cause of action is brought by Plaintiff Lopez against the FAC Defendants and by Anguiano against proposed-defendant DCW Logistics LLC.  In the second through eighth causes of action, the two plaintiffs share only one defendant (DCW Logistic Services Inc.); otherwise, each plaintiff asserts these causes of action against different defendants.  The ninth and tenth causes of action are brought by only Plaintiff Lopez.  And only Anguiano, not Plaintiff Lopez, has any claims against proposed-defendant DCW Logistics LLC.

No part of the proposed amendment enhances Plaintiff Lopez’s causes of action or available remedies; there is no perceivable benefit him and his ability to properly present his case.  (Cf. Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [error to deny leave to amend when a plaintiff would be deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action and properly present his case].)  Adding a new plaintiff who does not have claims against most of the FAC Defendants, and adding a new defendant against whom the original Plaintiff does not have any claims, does not serve judicial economy and would complicate this action before the May 8, 2023 jury trial.

Plaintiff’s contention that the amendment “would be in the interest of judicial economy” (Motion at p. 4) is belied by the fact that the same counsel originally filed both this action and Ramon Anguiano’s Case No. 20STCV38647 separately on the same date, and they did not file a Notice of Related Case in this action until two years later.  Ramon Anguiano’s claims were known to all parties when both actions were separately filed in October 2020, and they did not take any steps to relate, consolidate, or amend the cases until October 2022.  To demonstrate that they did not unduly delay, Plaintiff’s counsel points only to the parties’ October 2022 stipulation to continue trial “to allow ample opportunity to give notice of related cases and/or Doe Plaintiffs to be consolidated into the present case, including Los Angeles County Case number 20STCV38599.”  (Motion at pp. 5-7 & Ex. 2.)  That stipulation made no mention of Ramon Anguiano’s Case No. 20STCV38647.  Plaintiff provides no relevant explanation for his unwarranted delay in seeking to amend.  (See Record, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p.486.)

Furthermore, Ramon Anguiano filed a request for dismissal of Case No. 20STCV38647 without prejudice on August 22, 2022 (before the Notice of Related Case and stipulation to continue trial).  The proposed amendment therefore appears to be an attempt to resurrect those dismissed claims in this pending action.

The amendment also appears to be an improper and untimely request for reconsideration of the Court’s order finding the two cases unrelated.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a) [motion for reconsideration must be made within ten days after service of the order].)

The motion for leave to amend is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

       Dated this 7th day of February 2023