Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV25856, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25856    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: 45

JANE DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs GHALY CENTER, et al.

plaintiff’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint for damages and demand for jury trial

Date of Hearing:        April 15, 2025                                     Trial Date:       November 24, 2025

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        23STCV25856

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Jane Doe

Responding Party:     Defendants Ghaly Center  

BACKGROUND

On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint against Ghaly Center and Fouad Ghaly, MD for wrongful termination; sexual harassment; discrimination on the basis of sex; retaliation; hostile work environment; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation; negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damage and Demand for Jury Trial is GRANTED.

discussion

Plaintiff Jane Doe moves this court for an order granting Plaintiff leave to file her First Amended Complaint for damages and demand for jury trial. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add six new causes of action and additional facts that support these additional legal theories.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473 permits the court, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, to 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, in its discretion and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) 

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint on the grounds that during discovery, Plaintiff discovered the wage statements show that Defendant Ghaly Center paid Plaintiff at her regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. (Gifford Decl. at ¶ 10.) Additionally, the timesheets indicate Plaintiff was frequently denied meal breaks, but the wage statements do not show any meal period premiums paid to Plaintiff. (Gifford Decl. at ¶ 11.) As a result, Plaintiff determined the complaint could have been more robust and now seeks leave to amend. Plaintiff notes they have timely sought leave by almost immediately taking action after discovering the original complaint did not plead additional facts that support additional legal theories. Moreover, Plaintiff believes Defendant will not be prejudiced by the amendment as the parties will have plenty of time to conduct further discovery before trial.

Defendant opposes the motion for leave to amend on the grounds Plaintiff was aware of these “newly discovered facts” before she filed her lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff provides no declarations or evidentiary support to show that she learned of the newly alleged facts in her motion for leave to amend after the filing of her complaint. Instead, her attorneys submitted declarations. Defendant also argues the attorney’s declaration files to satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) and the newly added causes of action cannot stand because she could have alleged it in the original complaint.

The court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Defendant fails to provide any authority that a motion to amend a pleading requires a declaration by the plaintiff rather than plaintiff’s counsel. Moreover, the court finds this instance different from the facts in Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472. In Record, the plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to include a conversation he had with the defendant on the day of the subject incident. The plaintiff argued this conversation was revealed in discovery; however, the court found the plaintiff “had knowledge of the circumstances on which he based the amended complaint on the day he was injured, almost three years before he sought leave to amend.” (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486–487.) There has been no showing that Plaintiff knew the full extent of her wage and hour disputes. The court also finds there was no undue delay or prejudice against Defendant in seeking leave to amend.

Defendant is free to make merit-based arguments on a demurrer, summary judgment, or the like.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damage and Demand for Jury Trial is GRANTED.