Case Number: KC069294 Hearing Date: February 07, 2019 Dept: O

Plaintiff Stephanie Tilhof-Lesinski’s motion to amend complaint is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint is deemed filed this date.

Plaintiff Stephanie Tilhof-Lesinski (“plaintiff”) moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleadings.” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)

The original Complaint alleges that plaintiff complained to management that she discovered she was making $40,000 less than a male counterpart with identical job responsibilities. She was demoted, and instead of reporting to the President, was made to report to the person she had complained about.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the FAC to allege claims against Orange Line Oil Company, Inc. (“Orange Line”) and her joint employer Osprey Capital, LLC (“Osprey”). Over the course of discovery, plaintiff learned that she had two employers, Orange Line and Osprey Capital.

The statute of limitations has not run on plaintiff’s Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) claim, and therefore, leave should be granted as to the EPA claim. However, the statute of limitations has run on plaintiff’s California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims against Osprey, as well as her wrongful termination claim. Plaintiff requests application of the Relation Back Doctrine.

For an amended complaint to relate back to the original complaint, it must: (1) be based on the “same general set of facts” as the original; (2) seek recovery against the same defendants for the “same injuries”; and (3) refer to the “same incident” such as the “same accident” caused by the “same offending instrumentality.” (Barrington v. A. H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 146, 150; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408–409.)

Defendant Orange Line contends in opposition that plaintiff was not truly ignorant of Osprey, and therefore cannot avail herself to the relation-back doctrine codified under Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. (See Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint at 12.) However, “[t]he phrase ‘when the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant’ in Section 474 is not interpreted literally. The plaintiff is deemed ignorant of the name if she knows the identity of the person but is ignorant of the facts giving [her] a cause of action against the person, or knows the name and all the facts but is unaware that the law gives him a cause of action against the fictitiously named defendant, and discovers that right by reason of decisions rendered after the commencement of the action.” (Marasco v. Wadsworth (1078) 21 Cal.3d 82, 84.)

Here, plaintiff has adequately explained her ignorance of Osprey’s legal culpability. After plaintiff filed her lawsuit, she discovered that her immediate boss, Paul Wallace, had a direct agreement with Osprey in relation to his role at Orange Line and that Mr. Wallace sent emails to Osprey complaining about plaintiff. (See Declaration of Stepanie Tilhof-Lesinski ¶ 19.) Additionally, she learned that Orange Line owner Greg Hoffman was also principal at Osprey. (Id.)

The Court finds that it is in furtherance of justice to grant leave to amend to resolve all disputed matters in the same lawsuit. The motion is GRANTED. The FAC is deemed filed this date.