2012-00131949-CU-OE

Jason Heinz vs. Wright Tree Services

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File Amended Complaint

Filed By: Shimoda, Galen T.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint is GRANTED.

This is a class action litigation for failure to pay prevailing wages, overtime, and
minimum wages. The complaint was filed on September 19, 2012. No trial date has
been set. Plaintiff seeks to add allegations relating to Defendant’s taking improper
credits against the prevailing wages.

It is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing
amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their
substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of
others. Indeed, it is a rare case in which “a court will be justified in refusing a party
leave to amend his or her pleading so that he or she may properly present his or her
case. Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great
liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail. (Board of Trustees v.
Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1163.)

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that in December 18, 2012 it served discovery
on Defendant. (Declaration of Galen Shimoda, para. 2.) After several extensions,
Defendant responded to the discovery on May 13, 2013. (Id. para. 3.) After meeting
and conferring, Defendant agreed to produce additional documents, including
paystubs, which were produced on July 22, 2013. (Id. para. 4.) The documents,
however, did not identify any deductions on the paystubs and may not have been
providing the benefits to Plaintiff or the putative class. (Id.) Plaintiff sent out additional
discovery on the issue on August 22, 2013. (Id.) Defendant responded that it did had
turned over all other documents and was not aware of anything in addition that would
show what, if any, deductions were made from Plaintiff’s and the putative class
members’ pay. (Id. para. 5.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has been unreasonably dilatory in
seeking leave to amend as he was “plainly aware of the newly alleged facts at all
times.” (Opposition, 3:7-8.) Defendant also argues that it will be severely prejudiced
because Plaintiff’s deposition has already been taken and significant additional costs
will be incurred in conducting further discovery.

Even assuming that Plaintiff may have known of some of the additional facts at an
earlier time, Defendant has not shown that it will suffer any prejudice from the delay.
The only prejudice that Defendant cites is in the form of additional litigation costs and
additional delay in the proceedings. Because the action was filed in September 2012,
the case is not so old that any delay is likely to prejudice Defendant and no trial date
has been set. Moreover, the need for additional discovery accompanies almost every
amendment. Were they grounds to deny a motion such as this one, leave to amend
would never be granted.

Plaintiff may file and serve his amended complaint by November 18, 2013. The
proposed amended complaint attached as Exhibit A will not be separately filed by the
court clerk but will remain with the motion as an exhibit. Response to be filed and
served within 15 days of service of the amended complaint, 20 days if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.

The court notes that moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of
motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior
th
Court is 800 9 Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify
responding party(ies) immediately.