Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV19334, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19334    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff Timothy Philips filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) against Defendants Seizmic Inc. and Sal Fateen.

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (“4AC”).

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).)

Plaintiff provides a redlined copy of the proposed 4AC showing all amendments.  (Mah Decl., Ex. J.)  After meeting and conferring about deficiencies in the TAC, Defendants agreed to stipulate to the filing of a 4AC, so Plaintiff sent a joint stipulation and proposed 4AC.  (Mah Decl. ¶¶ 10-12 & Ex. B.)  Defendants’ counsel never authorized Plaintiff’s counsel to affix their electronic signature to the stipulation.  (Mah Decl. ¶¶ 14-17.)

Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s prior reiteration of Complaints alleges a cause[] of action for Defendants’ alleged failure to permit inspection or copying wage records under Labor Code §1198,” but “[t]hese facts were already present in Plaintiff’s original complaint over two years ago, and “[o]ther than adding this cause of action to his 4AC under a new labor code section, Plaintiff fails to allege any new facts to support this cause of action.”  (Opposition at pp. 5-6.)  This amendment does not add a new cause of action.  Although the TAC’s caption did not identify a cause of action under Labor Code section 226, subdivision (c), the body of the TAC did.  (See TAC at pp. 24-25.)  “[T]he 4AC cures the defect in the [TAC] as the TAC’s caption page incorrectly lays out the causes of actions Plaintiff alleges against Defendants.  The body of the TAC correctly includes Plaintiff’s Eight Cause of Action to be Defendant’s violation of Labor Code § 226(c).”  (Reply at p. 2.)

Defendants’ other arguments are primarily about the merits of the 4AC’s allegations.  (See Opposition at pp. 6-11.)  However, the Court does not ordinarily consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when determining whether to grant leave to amend.  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Because there is no showing of prejudice, the motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the 4AC within ten days.

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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 13th day of February 2024