MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT & MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Calendar: 19
Case No: EC060825
Date: 2/28/14

MP: Plaintiff, Matteo Baker, a minor through his guardian ad litem, Mark Baker
RP: Defendants, Pacific Oaks Education Corp., Jane Rosenberg, and Todd Hioki

RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Order granting Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint
2. Order imposing monetary sanctions of $8,310 on Defendants’ counsel.

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants caused him to suffer injuries and damages by failing to provide proper supervision. The Defendants provided child care for the Plaintiff. This hearing concerns the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add allegations in order to support a claim action certification and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.

1. Motion for Leave to Amend
The Plaintiff seeks to add allegations that will make the case a class action. If the Court grants the motion, the case will be transferred to the Central District under Local Rule 2.3(a) because all class actions are heard in the Central District. The Central District can then make the class certification determination.
CCP section 473(a) permits the Court to grant leave to a party to amend a pleading. The Court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. If a motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530.

The Plaintiff provides evidence to demonstrate that his motion is timely with evidence that the Plaintiff obtained the facts supporting the amendment in December 18, 2013, when the Defendant produced business records. The Plaintiff states that the documents reveals that the facility was operating at overcapacity, that the facility failed to observe and supervise the children, that the facility failed to report injuries and unusual incidents, and that the facility concealed serious injuries.
Further, granting leave to amend will not cause the Defendants to suffer prejudice in their ability to prepare for trial because there is no trial date.

The Defendants argue that the new claims lack sufficient facts. Generally, the Court does not ordinarily consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when determining whether to grant leave to amend. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1045. This is because the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. Id. In the pending case, since there is no trial date, the Defendants may test the legal sufficiency of the new claims by filing the appropriate motion. Accordingly, this is not a ground to deny the motion.

Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiff’s motion because the Plaintiff’s motion is timely and because the Defendants will not suffer any prejudice from granting the motion. Since the amendment will subject this case to the Local Rule that requires class actions to be filed in the Central District, the Court will transfer the case to the Central District.

2. Motion for Sanctions.
The Plaintiff seeks an order imposing monetary sanctions under CRC rule 2.30, which permits a litigant to seek sanctions against an attorney who fails to comply with the California Rules of Court. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant failed to comply with CRC rule 1.20, which requires attorneys to protect privacy by redacting the identifiers from all pleadings and papers filed with the Court, e.g., social security numbers and financial account numbers. California law holds that an attorney who fails to comply with CRC rule 1.20 may be subject to sanctions under CRC rule 2.30. G.R. v. Intelligator (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 606, 616.

The Plaintiff states that on January 8, 2014, the Defendants served a motion for summary adjudication that contained the social security numbers, financial account information, driver’s license number, and home address of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff filed the pending motion on January 15, 2014 to request sanctions and an order redacting the information.
On January 22, 2014, the Defendants appeared with an ex parte application to seek an order redacting the information from the Court file. The Court granted the application. Accordingly, the request to redact the information is moot.

However, the Defendants violated CRC rule 1.20 by failing to redact the identifiers from its papers. Under CRC rule 2.30, the Court may impose monetary sanctions on the Defendants to compensate the Plaintiff for any loss arising out of the improper disclosure. Intelligator, 185 Cal.App.4th at 618. The Plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions of $1,500 on the Defendants. However, the Plaintiff does not offer any evidence to demonstrate he suffered $1,500 from the improper disclosure. Further, since the Court redacted the personal information promptly, i.e., 14 days after the Defendants’ motion was filed, it does not appear that the Plaintiff suffered any loss from the disclosure.
Accordingly, the Court should deny the request for monetary sanctions because the Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to demonstrate that he suffered a loss from the violation of CRC rule 1.20.

CRC rule 2.30(d) also authorizes the Court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the Plaintiff for the expenses incurred to bring the motion. This award of expenses is in addition to the sanctions that may be awarded for the failure to comply with the rule. The Plaintiff also requests an award of of $6,810 for 10 hours of attorney time billed at $675 plus costs of $60. This is not a reasonable amount to award for this motion. The issue was not complicated because the Defendant indisputably violated CRC rule 1.20 by filing documents with the Court that contained the Plaintiff’s identifiers. In addition, the hourly rate is not reasonable for a simple law and motion request for sanctions.
A more reasonable amount of expenses would be $1,060 for 4 hours billed at $250 per hour + $60 in filing fees. Accordingly, the Court will award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of $1,060 to the Plaintiff.

RULING:
1. Grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
2. Grant Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under CRC rule 2.30 and award the Plaintiff $1,060
3. Transfer case to Central District for a determination on class certification.