Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV28382, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV28382 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: March 12, 2024
CASE NAME: David Ryan Sharp v. The County of Los Angeles
CASE NO.: 23STCV28382
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff David Ryan Sharp
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant County of Los Angeles
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An Order granting leave to file the attached Proposed Second Amended Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED and deemed filed this date.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff David Ryan Sharp (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant The County of Los Angeles (Defendant) with two causes of action for: (1) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; and (2) Wage Claim in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203, 227.3.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff worked as an Ocean Lifeguard in Los Angeles County since 2003. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to a baseless age discrimination complaint for reporting a coworkers for urinating off the back of a boat in public and in front of adult students Plaintiff was training. Plaintiff further alleges that he was passed up for promotion in retaliation for reporting this incident and that he was not paid final wages when his employment ended.
On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) with the same causes of action.
On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
On February 2, 2024, Defendant filed a Demurrer to the FAC.
On February 28, 2024, Defendant filed an Opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a SAC. On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
LEGAL STANDARD:
California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 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 (CRC), 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.¿¿¿
Request for Judicial Notice
The court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A - F. (Evid. Code § 452(d), (h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿¿
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff contends the court should grant leave because the proposed SAC clarifies the theory of liability attributed to Defendant after meet and confer and Defendant will not be prejudiced by an amendment. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is meritless because it would be futile because Plaintiff cannot establish the second prong of the subject ordinance. Plaintiff replies that Defendant applies the wrong standard on this motion and requests judicial notice of a document that Plaintiff has never seen.
Here, Plaintiff complied with CRC, rule 3.1324. First, Plaintiff included a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Baisch Decl. ¶7, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff also identified the proposed changes to the pleading. (Baisch Decl. ¶9.) Second, Plaintiff’s submitted a separate declaration that set forth 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 (Baisch Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10.) Defendant has not challenged Plaintiff’s motion for being procedurally defective. Instead, Defendant advances argument that they would be required to file a demurrer to the proposed SAC because it is legally deficient. While the court appreciates that Defendant considers this court’s calendar, upon reviewing the papers submitted with the instant motion, the court exercises its discretion to grant the amendment and proceed with separate demurrer proceedings.[1] (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the SAC.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1.Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED and deemed filed this date. The Demurrer to the FAC filed on February 2, 2024, and calendared for March 12, 2024 is now moot. The Demurrer reserved for April 4, 2024 remains on calendar.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court