Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 23STCV30677, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

1. An Order Quashing the Amendment to Complaint replacing Tom Mendes with Laura Hernandez.

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Garcia (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Sam’s West, Inc. dba Sam’s Club and Tom Mendes (Defendants) with seven causes of action for: (1) Disability Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a); (2) Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(m); (3) Failure to Engage in an Interactive Process in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(n); (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of § 12940(k); (5) Harassment in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(j); (6) Retaliation in Violation of § 12940(h); and (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants and sustained work-related knee injuries that Defendants did not accommodate. Plaintiff further alleges that her injury worsened requiring surgery and Defendants terminated her employment while she was out on disability leave.

On February 23, 2024, Defendant Sam’s West, Inc. dba Sam’s Club (Sam’s West) filed an Answer.

On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a LACIV 105Amendment to Complaint changing Tom Mendes to Laura Hernandez (Hernandez) which the court GRANTED.

On August 26, 2024, Defendant Hernandez filed the instant Motion to Quash. On December 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 27, 2024, Defendant Hernandez filed a reply.

A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over it. (Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 418.10, subd. (a).) CCP § 418.10 provides the exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset. (Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 337, 342.) Although the defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to defeat the motion by establishing that jurisdictional grounds exist. (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.)

Defendant Hernandez contends Plaintiff’s Amendment to Complaint is defective because it was not a name correction but the addition of a completely new party, is procedurally defective, and is time barred. Plaintiff argues the Amendment is proper, is not time barred, and requests leave to substitute Defendant Hernandez as a “Doe” defendant in the alternative. Defendant Hernandez replied that a Doe Amendment would be futile, Plaintiff did not properly request leave to amend, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated true ignorance of Defendant Hernandez’s identity.

CCP § 474 provides that “[w]hen the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint . . . and when his true name is discovered, the pleading . . . must be amended accordingly . . . .” A motion to quash service may be brought where the terms of CCP § 474 have not been met. (See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Const., Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145; McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 375.)

Here, Defendant Hernandez’s arguments are well taken. First, Plaintiff purports to swap Defendant Hernandez as her manager in lieu of Defendant Mendes because she forgot Defendant Hernandez’s name, not because Plaintiff was “ignorant of the name” of that defendant. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Amendment to Complaint indicates it is an “incorrect name” rather than a fictitious name. Second, Plaintiff failed to provide evidence with her opposition supporting her claim that she forgot Ms. Hernandez’s name. Plaintiff relies on Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 180 (Woo) to support her argument. This reliance is misplaced. The Woo Court “perceive[ed] an element of disingenuousness in [the plaintiff’s] arguments.” While negligent ignorance is ok, Plaintiff must still use CCP § 474 in good faith. (Woo, supra at p. 179-180 [discussing Balon v. Drost (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 483 (also a Doe amendment case).) Here, Plaintiff originally alleged that Defendant Mendes berated her. (Complaint ¶ 17.) Now she claims that Defendant Hernandez did so instead. As in Woo, it appears disingenuous that Plaintiff forgot who berated her and Plaintiff provided no evidence to the court that the amendment is in good faith.[1]

[1] This result is consistent with the court’s prior grant of the Amendment to Complaint because the court did not rule on factual merits with the Amendment but simply granted a local court form submitted without a supporting declaration or any supporting evidence.