Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 19STCV35714, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35714    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   September 22, 2022                                       

CASE NAME:            Endanicha Bragg, et al. v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al.

CASE NO.:                19STCV35714

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Endanicha Bragg, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants International Longshore and Warehouse Union, et al.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs Endanicha Bragg, Tracy Plummer, and Marisol Romero (“Plaintiffs”) filed an initial Complaint on October 7, 2019, and the operative First Amended Complaint on April 16, 2020. The FAC alleges that the Plaintiffs all became pregnant during the course of their work, and were unable to obtain necessary accommodations related to their pregnancies.  Plaintiffs allege the failure to accommodate resulted in violation of California law, lost pay, and loss of seniority needed to acquire union membership.

Defendants Pacific Maritime Association, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13 (“Defendants”) filed Answers to the FAC on May 18, 2020, and discovery ensued.

On June 27, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the current Motion to Enforce Deposition Subpoena for Production of Documents. Third Party Everport Terminal Services, Inc., filed an Opposition on August 18, 2022. Plaintiffs reply was filed on August 23, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD:

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, 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; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” 

“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.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).) 

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.  

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), 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. 

Procedural Issues:

Defendants raise an issue under Rule of Court, Rule 3.1324(b), arguing that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently specify why the new cause of action is necessary. However, after review of the Declaration of Laboni A. Hoq, the Court determines that the Declaration is sufficient. It states that this new information was obtained and learned through discovery and depositions, which occurred more recently. (Dec. Hoq, ¶ 24.)

Additionally, the Declaration of Laboni A. Hoq has the proposed SAC as Exhibit A, a redlined version of the SAC as Exhibit B. Additionally, the motion and the Hoq Declaration identify the allegations are to be deleted and which to be added, and the locations of these proposals.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC.”) The SAC will add new named plaintiffs, add new and clarify existing theories about liability, and add a new claim against Defendants for violating the L.A. Living Wage Ordinance.

Plaintiffs sought a stipulation against the Defendants. Defendant Pacific Maritime Association (“PMA”) indicated that they would stipulate to the proposed amendments. (Dec. Hoq, ¶ 37.) Defendants International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and the ILWU Local 13 (“Union Defendants”) did not agree to stipulate to the proposed amendments. (Id. at ¶ 36.)

A.     Proposed Amendment

Plaintiff will add new plaintiffs, new theories, and new claims.

1.      New Named Plaintiffs

Plaintiff seeks to add Kaiaunna Smith, Megan Russo-Kahn, and Clarissa Hernando as the new plaintiffs. These individuals are employed at the Los Angeles and Long Beach Port and were subjected to the same discriminatory policies. The new amendment indicates that these new plaintiffs had the same kinds of injury and demand the same relief: all began working in either 2018 or 2019 and had children during their tenure. (Redlined SAC ¶¶ 198, 200, 202-204, 213-215, 226, 228, 229.) They did not receive accommodations throughout the pregnancies.

2.      Allegations regarding liability

Plaintiff seeks to allege that both Defendants operate “as an integrated enterprise with the Operating Entities and/or that PMA is a joint venturer with the Operating Entities.” (Motion 11: 7-9; Redlined SAC ¶¶ 24, 41, 47.)

3.      Claims under Living Wage Ordinance

Plaintiff lastly seeks to add claims against Defendants PMA and Local 13 for “failure to provide personal and sick leave under the LWO. These proposed amendments would add allegations that Defendants violated its obligations under the LWO. (Motion 13: 8-9.)

B.     Leave Should be Granted

Plaintiff contends that the motion should be granted for two reasons: it was timely filed and there will be no prejudice to the Defendants.

1.      Timely

Plaintiff argues that these proposed amendments are timely. First, Plaintiffs obtained class contact information after Defendant PMA was ordered to produce such information. These new proposed Plaintiffs entered a retainer agreement in August 2021; after exhausting the administrative remedies with the California Civil Rights Department, they obtained a right to sue letter on August 24, 2022. The motion was filed six days later.  Second, the new theories were discovered recently; specifically, Plaintiffs discovered this information during the PMQ depositions for PMA, ILWU, and Local 13, which took place from January 27, 2022 to June 7, 2022. Lastly, the new claim is timely as Plaintiffs requested information in September 2021 about compliance with LWO. After submitting a Public Records Act request submitted in April 2022, Plaintiffs obtained information from April 2022 to June 2022.

2.      Not Prejudicial

Plaintiffs argue that the proposed amendments are not prejudicial. There is no trial date assigned, no discovery cutoff date assigned, and no dispositive motions have been filed. (Motion 17: 3-5.) The new plaintiffs allege similar facts and claims against Defendants As to the new theory, it is similar and related to the same general set of facts. Lastly, the new theories will not “significantly expand the scope of Plaintiffs’ current discovery requests as on Defendants’ statute as an employer, agent, and/or aider and abettor.” (Motion 18: 18-19.)

Defendants contends that the proposed amendments would be prejudicial because the new amendments would require extensive discovery and require Defendants to “re-evaluate their liability under Plaintiffs’ causes of action, shifting a focus from defending this lawsuit as an aider and abettor to potentially defending the lawsuit as an employer.” (Opp. 12: 22-25.) Additionally, Defendants argue that the proposed amendments concerning liability theory are untimely as the issue of joint ventures, agent, and integrated enterprise have been known to Plaintiffs since 2019; they had “substantial information about these topics in 2019 because they alleged in their Complaint that Defendant PMA and Defendant Unions exercised “joint control” over the Casual longshore workforce.” (Opp. 13: 23-25.)

“It is the general rule that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed.” (Simons v. Kern County (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 362, 367). Further, “And it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530). Here, the proposed amendments are appropriate and would not be prejudicial because the information was not known until recently and the discovery is still in progress or has already been completed. As the court stated in Record v. Reason, “even 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.) There was no unwarranted delay because the evidence demonstrates that once Plaintiffs obtained contact information through discovery, the three proposed Plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies prior to this motion.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             September 22, 2022                _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court