2011-00110803-CU-OE

Volodymyr Rybakov vs. Bissell Bros Inc

Nature of Proceeding:      Motion to File First Amended Complaint

Filed By:    Pyle, Hunter

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

Plaintiffs’ counsels’ declarations are sufficient.  (CRC 3.1324.)

Plaintiff moves to add three causes of action and related factual allegations for: (1)
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses, (2) Failure to Pay Split Shift Premiums, and
(3) Failure to Provide Off Duty Meal Periods.

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.)

While it is arguable that Plaintiffs may have known of the facts supporting the
proposed first amended complaint prior to filing the original complaint, the Court finds
that Defendant has not shown that it will suffer any prejudice from the delay. Indeed,

Defendant has not identified any prejudice that it may potentially suffer.

To the extent Defendant argues that the amended complaint does not relate back to
the original complaint, such arguments may be addressed in an appropriate motion
challenging the pleading.

Plaintiffs may file and serve their amended complaint by July 14, 2014. 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.