Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV33097, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33097    Hearing Date: November 14, 2022    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   November 14, 2022                           

CASE NAME:           Sarena Serrano v. Core Community Organized Relief Effort, et al. 

CASE NO.:                21STCV33097

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sarena Serrano

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant City of Los Angeles and Defendant Jaime Lesinski

REQUESTED RELIEF:

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.       Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff Sarena Serrano (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Core Community Organized Relief Effort, Ann Young, City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles Fire Department, Jaime Lesinski, and Does 1 through 20 (“Defendants”). The complaint alleged nine causes of action: (1) Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment, (2) Gender Violence, (3) Sexual Battery, (4) Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment, (5) Sexual Harassment, (6) Retaliation, (7) Failure to Prevent Harassment, (8) Failure to Prevent Retaliation, and (9) Wrongful Termination. The complaint alleges that the Defendant Lesinski physically and verbally sexually harassed and battered the Plaintiff during her employment with Core.

On October 27, 2021, Defendant Core Community Organized Relief Effort filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which was GRANTED, as to Plaintiff’s claim against Core and Young.

On January 19, 2022, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed an Answer.

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Pending Arbitration Proceeding.

On April 22, 2022, Defendant Jaime Lesinski filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

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. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Sarena Serrano moves to for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff seeks leave on the grounds that the original complaint contains an erroneous statement. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendant Lesinski is employed by CORE. However, Plaintiff states that this is incorrect and leave should be granted to allow the FAC to correct this allegation.

Plaintiff argues that the need to amend the complaint did not arise until the June 29, 2022, hearing on Defendant’s Lesinski’s motion to compel arbitration, which was granted. Plaintiff argues that this motion is timely, that she should be able to have the claims decided by a jury, and that Defendant will not be prejudiced by this amendment.

Both Defendant City of Los Angeles and Defendant Lesinski filed oppositions. Both argue that the motion should be denied because the FAC is a sham pleading. The proposed amendments seek to “avoid arbitrating Plaintiff’s claims against Lesinski.” (Lesinski Opposition, 5:12-14.) Additionally, Defendant Lesinski argues that Plaintiff did not comply with California Rule of Court because Plaintiff did not provide an explanation as to any of the following: (1) why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered, and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Id. at 16-19.)  Further, City of Los Angeles, argues that Plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory for why the need to make the amendments did not arise until after the Court issued its tentative ruling on June 29, 2022, compelling arbitration. (City of Los Angeles Opposition, 3: 4-9.)

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).

However, the Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s reasoning as to why leave should be granted to amend the original complaint. In the supplemental declaration, Manuel Corrales, Jr. states that they informed the court at the June [sic] 29, 2022, motion to compel hearing, that they had conducted an investigation into Defendant Lesiniki’s employment status, checking the CORE website to determine what was the City Fire Department’s involvement with CORE. (Supp. Dec. Corrales, Jr., ¶ 3-4.) However, Plaintiff fails to explain how the need to amendment became apparent at the June 29^th hearing, where the Court determined that Plaintiff was required to arbitrate the claims in the complaint. Plaintiff does not provide when the issue surrounding Lesiniki’s employment status became known or why it was not made until the motion to compel was heard. It appear that this issue arose after the Court issued a Tentative Ruling on June 28, 2022 outlining its reasoning for granting the motion to compel arbitration.

Further, the Court in Vallejo explained the reasoning behind the sham pleading doctrine: ““A pleader may not attempt to breathe life into a complaint by omitting relevant facts which made his previous complaint defective.” [citations omitted.] Moreover, any inconsistencies with prior pleadings must be explained; if the pleader fails to do so, the court may disregard the inconsistent allegations.” (Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 946). The facts here present themselves to a sham pleading. The complaint alleges Defendant Lesiniki was employed by CORE, and Defendant Lesinski then moved to arbitrate the claims. Plaintiff attempted to vacate the pending arbitration, which was denied, and then filed this motion to amend the complaint, eliminating any claims that Defendant Lesinski worked for CORE. This reads as another attempt by Plaintiff to vacate the arbitration because if Plaintiff removes allegations of Lesinski’s employment with CORE, Plaintiff will and is arguing, arbitration is unnecessary. Thus, this is a sham pleading.  

Therefore, the Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Conclusion:

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

Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             November 14, 2022                __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court