SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
| KYSA PAUL, etc.,
Plaintiff, vs.
TARGET CORPORATION, etc., et al.,
Defendants. |
CASE NO.: 19STCV25148
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINITFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Date: February 3, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 IDC: April 1, 2020 |
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Target Corporation (“Moving Defendant”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Kysa Paul
The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an alleged wrongful termination. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (3) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of disability and/or medical condition in violation of FEHA; (6) harassment on the basis of disability and/or medical condition in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (8) failure to engage in the interactive process; (9) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of FEHA; (10) retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (11) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (13) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause; and (14) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On August 9, 2019, Moving Defendant filed and served its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. After Moving Defendant filed its answer, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 16, 2019 alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (3) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (6) harassment on the basis of race in violation of the FEHA; (7) discrimination on the basis of disability and/or medical condition in violation of FEHA; (8) harassment on the basis of disability and/or medical condition in violation of FEHA; (9) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (10) failure to engage in the interactive process; (11) violation of California Labor Code, Section 1102.5; (12) retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation of FEHA; (13) retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (14) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (15) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (16) breach of implied-in-fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause; and (17) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Moving Defendant filed a motion for an order striking Plaintiff’s FAC. Moving Defendant asserts that Plaintiff filed her FAC after it answered Plaintiff’s initial complaint.
Plaintiff opposes Moving Defendant’s motion on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff cannot “withdraw” the FAC as there is no established procedure for doing so; and (2) Moving Defendant’s motion to strike constitutes a waste of judicial time and resources. Plaintiff provides no legal authority whatsoever to support Plaintiff’s arguments on the above points. The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s arguments on these points due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with legal authority to support such propositions. (Heglin v. F.C.B.A. Market (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 803, 806.)
MEET AND CONFER
The meet and confer requirement has been met.
DISCUSSION
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 436 allows a court to strike a pleading upon a noticed motion. California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 472(a) says that “[a] party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” ‘Under section 472, a plaintiff may only amend as a matter of course before an answer . . . is filed. A that point the plaintiff’s right to amend as a matter of course is gone.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613.) “After expiration of the time in which a pleading can be amended as a matter of course, the pleading can only be amended by obtaining the permission of the court.” (Id. at 613.) With respect to amending a complaint after the time for such amendment as a matter of right has passed, a plaintiff must “file a noticed motion for leave.” (Id.) “A court may, by virtue of its inherent power to prevent abuse of its processes, strike an amended complaint which was filed in disregard of established procedural processes.” (Loser v. E.R. Bacon Co. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 387, 390.)
The Court will exercise its inherent power under Loser and will strike Plaintiff’s FAC. Plaintiff does not dispute that fact that: (1) Plaintiff filed the FAC after Moving Defendant answered Plaintiff’s initial complaint; and (2) Plaintiff did not obtain leave of this Court to file the FAC. Plaintiff’s FAC is clearly improper under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 472 and Leader.
Therefore, Moving Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s FAC is GRANTED. If Plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must file a noticed motion for leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 3rd day of February 2020