Preview
BY FAX
ewe om IR A KH FF WL
10
oN
- ORIGINA
t2” FIL
UPERIOR |
[asnelliOuntcacitiaweom 2BNOY -6 PH
Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570)
JCarney@antonellilaw.com
LAW ICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Tel.: (909) 393-0223 / Fax: (909) 393-0471
Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Tel.: (310) 432-0000/ Fax: (310) 432-0001
Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated and the general public
Additional Plaintiff's Counsel listed on Proof of Service
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and } Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-201 6-6523
thers similarly situated, Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys
others similarly situate Dope 10
Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
v. 2
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF Date: November 14, 2018
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET ) Dept: 10C
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET }
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.;
‘TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive,
)
)
Action Filed: July 5, 2016
Trial Date: June 10, 2019
Defendants
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINTSo FD eI AH PR wD
Uk WN =
16
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) should be
GRANTED as Defendants Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.; Auxiliary of Doctors Hospital of
Manteca; Drs Hospital of Manteca, Inc.; SP of Manteca Inc.; Tenet Healthcare Corporation;
Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc.; Tenet Health (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Defendants” or “Manteca”) fails to oppose the request on substantive grounds and instead
argues that Defendants would suffer prejudice at this stage of the action. The Defendants’
feigned prejudice is nothing more than a fiction. Defendants have been on notice since the
original filing that Plaintiff intends on seeking relief on behalf of all employees at all Tenet
hospitals in California. In fact, Defendants have responded to discovery propounded to
Defendants Tenet Healthcare and Tenet Health Integrated Services, claiming not to be the
employer of the putative class. (Decl. Carney §3) There has been NO limit to the scope of
discovery and the Defendants position in this regard is disingenuous at best. (Id)
The purpose of the amended complaint is to clarify classes of employees for purposes of
certification and trial. No material changes were made to the allegations except to include more
specific language to the wage claims. Defendants’ feigned prejudice is a faux creation brought
on by its own strategic decision to claim that the Tenet entities are not employers of the putative
class. The Defendants are going to be bound by their objections and responses in discovery.
Accordingly, Defendants will not be able to put on evidence at trial of their affirmative defenses
regarding such claims. Moreover, the SAC and its amendments are in furtherance of justice and
are “clearly in accord with the modern theories of code pleading.” Atkinson v. Elk Corp., 109
Cal.App.4th 739, 760 (2003). The most disingenuous aspect of the Defendants’ opposition is
that Defendants could have easily stipulated to allow the amendment and avoid law and motion.
Instead, Defendants chose to delay this matter further by forcing the Plaintiff to file the present
motion.
This Court is a fiduciary to the class and as such, Plaintiff requests that the court allow
the amendment, The court has a fiduciary obligation to protect the putative class members,
including the class representative. In class actions, the Court is the fiduciary of class members.
(See, e.g., 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th
1
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINTCoN DA HW BF WN
RN RN N YN KN NY He Be eS Se ew ew eH Se
eld AA FON | SF Oo WHI A HA PY NES
1135, 1151 [calling the trial court “a ‘fiduciary’ of the absent class member ...”]; Bingham v.
Obledo (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 401, 406 [“The trial court has a duty adequately to protect the
members of the class”] As such, the Court must consider the equities in the case at bar, and
should do so from its role as fiduciary. In the instance case, plaintiff and the putative class
members’ rights should be protected and leave to amend the pleading should be granted.
L THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES NOT MATERIALLY CHANGE
THE ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff has always alleged failure to pay wages claim, clarified the off the clock claims
and clarified the proposed classes and sub-classes in advance of certification. Plaintiff's
Compliant has always alleged class definitions regarding all employees of Defendants. The
proposed Second Amended Complaint clarified which hospital facilities were included in the
definition. There is no prejudice to the Defendants to have clarity at this stage in the litgation.
Plaintiff's proposed SAC does nothing to alter the landscape of the case and in fact will
allow the certification motion to be clarified as to particular classes and subclasses, based on the
discovery. Plaintiff's additional discovery, which is not relevant to this motion, has been based
on the current operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint, and an order granting leave will
do nothing to increase the amount of discovery served to date.
I. DEFENDANT SUFFERS NO PREJUDICE IN ITS ABILITY TO DEFEND
AGAINST PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
“Trial courts ‘are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to
the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,’ where the adverse party
will not be prejudiced.” Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc., 212 Cal. App. 4th 258, 268 (2012);
citing Atkinson v. Elk Corp., 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (2003). Defendant has shown no
prejudice to its ability to defend against the newly added proposed class representative if
Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is granted. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of
Sunnyvale, 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545 (2007) (no prejudice for leave to amend on eve of a trial as}
trial could be continued, even though adverse party did not want continuance, thus amendment
did not prejudice Defendant’s ability to defend the newly added causes of action). In fact, cases
like Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 772, 774 & 779 (a court has
2
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINTOo wen A Uw BW N
discretion to order a notice letter to be sent to the potential class to locate a suitable class
representative where the class representative is inadequate). Here, Defendant is not prejudiced
by the proposed amendment.
“Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance
prevails.” Atkinson, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at 761. “Furthermore, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal
theories are introduced as jong as the proposed amendments ‘relate to the same general set of
facts.’” Id.; citing Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (1989).
In the instant case, Defendants cannot point to any prejudice it would incur as a result of the
proposed amendment to the complaint. Courts have noted prejudice occurs when the amendment
is sought despite the fact that “. . . the trial date is set, the jury [has been] impaneled, counsel, the
parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blacked the time, and the only way to avoid
prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of
leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion.” Duchrow v. Forrest, 215 Cal.App. 4th 1359,
1377-1378 (2013); citing Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc., 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 (1996).
“[W]where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny
leave to amend.” Thompson, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at 545; citing Atkinson, supra, 109
Cal.App.4th at 761. Since there is no prejudice to Defendants in this case, it would be an abuse
of discretion to deny Plaintiff's request for leave to amend to file the Proposed SAC. The
amendment is only sought to clarify classes. The FAC has always alleged representation of all
hourly employees at all of Defendant’s facilities. (See RIN Exh. 1 PIf FAC, 20-108) Plaintiff
merely seeks to clarify the classes and sub-classes as herein stated.
Defendant’s reliance on Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co. (1994) 28 Cal.
App. 4th 686, 692 is misplaced as there has already been sufficient discovery sought and the
proposed amended complaint does not change any of the material allegations or defendants. The
additional discovery propounded to Defendant that is bemoaned about in the opposition was
based on the allegations contained in the FAC since, as stated, Plaintiff has always alleged, and
Defendant has always been on notice of, the allegations as to all Defendants.
MUL
Mill
3
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINTCen Aw ew HY =
°
li
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, and those stated in Plaintiff's moving papers, and in
furtherance of justice, the Court should GRANT Plaintiff's leave to file the proposed Second
Amended Complaint. Denial will severely prejudice Plaintiff and the putative class members
from pursuing all relevant claims and would be tantamount to a deprivation of their due process
rights. The Court, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's counsel owe a fiduciary duty to all putative class
members.
Dated: November 6, 2018 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
|
‘arney, Attorney for Plainti
By:
4
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
BY FAX ewe om IR A KH FF WL 10 oN - ORIGINA t2” FIL UPERIOR | [asnelliOuntcacitiaweom 2BNOY -6 PH Janelle Carney, Esq. (Bar No. 201570) JCarney@antonellilaw.com LAW ICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor Chino Hills, CA 91709 Tel.: (909) 393-0223 / Fax: (909) 393-0471 Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776) Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483) LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Tel.: (310) 432-0000/ Fax: (310) 432-0001 Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated and the general public Additional Plaintiff's Counsel listed on Proof of Service SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and } Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-201 6-6523 thers similarly situated, Hon. Elizabeth Humphreys others similarly situate Dope 10 Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. 2 DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF Date: November 14, 2018 MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; ) Time: 9:00 a.m. SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET ) Dept: 10C HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET } HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; ‘TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, ) ) Action Filed: July 5, 2016 Trial Date: June 10, 2019 Defendants REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTSo FD eI AH PR wD Uk WN = 16 INTRODUCTION Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) should be GRANTED as Defendants Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc.; Auxiliary of Doctors Hospital of Manteca; Drs Hospital of Manteca, Inc.; SP of Manteca Inc.; Tenet Healthcare Corporation; Tenet Health Integrated Services, Inc.; Tenet Health (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “Manteca”) fails to oppose the request on substantive grounds and instead argues that Defendants would suffer prejudice at this stage of the action. The Defendants’ feigned prejudice is nothing more than a fiction. Defendants have been on notice since the original filing that Plaintiff intends on seeking relief on behalf of all employees at all Tenet hospitals in California. In fact, Defendants have responded to discovery propounded to Defendants Tenet Healthcare and Tenet Health Integrated Services, claiming not to be the employer of the putative class. (Decl. Carney §3) There has been NO limit to the scope of discovery and the Defendants position in this regard is disingenuous at best. (Id) The purpose of the amended complaint is to clarify classes of employees for purposes of certification and trial. No material changes were made to the allegations except to include more specific language to the wage claims. Defendants’ feigned prejudice is a faux creation brought on by its own strategic decision to claim that the Tenet entities are not employers of the putative class. The Defendants are going to be bound by their objections and responses in discovery. Accordingly, Defendants will not be able to put on evidence at trial of their affirmative defenses regarding such claims. Moreover, the SAC and its amendments are in furtherance of justice and are “clearly in accord with the modern theories of code pleading.” Atkinson v. Elk Corp., 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 (2003). The most disingenuous aspect of the Defendants’ opposition is that Defendants could have easily stipulated to allow the amendment and avoid law and motion. Instead, Defendants chose to delay this matter further by forcing the Plaintiff to file the present motion. This Court is a fiduciary to the class and as such, Plaintiff requests that the court allow the amendment, The court has a fiduciary obligation to protect the putative class members, including the class representative. In class actions, the Court is the fiduciary of class members. (See, e.g., 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTCoN DA HW BF WN RN RN N YN KN NY He Be eS Se ew ew eH Se eld AA FON | SF Oo WHI A HA PY NES 1135, 1151 [calling the trial court “a ‘fiduciary’ of the absent class member ...”]; Bingham v. Obledo (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 401, 406 [“The trial court has a duty adequately to protect the members of the class”] As such, the Court must consider the equities in the case at bar, and should do so from its role as fiduciary. In the instance case, plaintiff and the putative class members’ rights should be protected and leave to amend the pleading should be granted. L THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES NOT MATERIALLY CHANGE THE ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff has always alleged failure to pay wages claim, clarified the off the clock claims and clarified the proposed classes and sub-classes in advance of certification. Plaintiff's Compliant has always alleged class definitions regarding all employees of Defendants. The proposed Second Amended Complaint clarified which hospital facilities were included in the definition. There is no prejudice to the Defendants to have clarity at this stage in the litgation. Plaintiff's proposed SAC does nothing to alter the landscape of the case and in fact will allow the certification motion to be clarified as to particular classes and subclasses, based on the discovery. Plaintiff's additional discovery, which is not relevant to this motion, has been based on the current operative pleading, the First Amended Complaint, and an order granting leave will do nothing to increase the amount of discovery served to date. I. DEFENDANT SUFFERS NO PREJUDICE IN ITS ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT “Trial courts ‘are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,’ where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.” Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc., 212 Cal. App. 4th 258, 268 (2012); citing Atkinson v. Elk Corp., 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (2003). Defendant has shown no prejudice to its ability to defend against the newly added proposed class representative if Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is granted. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale, 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545 (2007) (no prejudice for leave to amend on eve of a trial as} trial could be continued, even though adverse party did not want continuance, thus amendment did not prejudice Defendant’s ability to defend the newly added causes of action). In fact, cases like Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 772, 774 & 779 (a court has 2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTOo wen A Uw BW N discretion to order a notice letter to be sent to the potential class to locate a suitable class representative where the class representative is inadequate). Here, Defendant is not prejudiced by the proposed amendment. “Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.” Atkinson, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at 761. “Furthermore, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as jong as the proposed amendments ‘relate to the same general set of facts.’” Id.; citing Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (1989). In the instant case, Defendants cannot point to any prejudice it would incur as a result of the proposed amendment to the complaint. Courts have noted prejudice occurs when the amendment is sought despite the fact that “. . . the trial date is set, the jury [has been] impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blacked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion.” Duchrow v. Forrest, 215 Cal.App. 4th 1359, 1377-1378 (2013); citing Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc., 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 (1996). “[W]where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” Thompson, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at 545; citing Atkinson, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at 761. Since there is no prejudice to Defendants in this case, it would be an abuse of discretion to deny Plaintiff's request for leave to amend to file the Proposed SAC. The amendment is only sought to clarify classes. The FAC has always alleged representation of all hourly employees at all of Defendant’s facilities. (See RIN Exh. 1 PIf FAC, 20-108) Plaintiff merely seeks to clarify the classes and sub-classes as herein stated. Defendant’s reliance on Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 686, 692 is misplaced as there has already been sufficient discovery sought and the proposed amended complaint does not change any of the material allegations or defendants. The additional discovery propounded to Defendant that is bemoaned about in the opposition was based on the allegations contained in the FAC since, as stated, Plaintiff has always alleged, and Defendant has always been on notice of, the allegations as to all Defendants. MUL Mill 3 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTCen Aw ew HY = ° li CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, and those stated in Plaintiff's moving papers, and in furtherance of justice, the Court should GRANT Plaintiff's leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. Denial will severely prejudice Plaintiff and the putative class members from pursuing all relevant claims and would be tantamount to a deprivation of their due process rights. The Court, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's counsel owe a fiduciary duty to all putative class members. Dated: November 6, 2018 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC | ‘arney, Attorney for Plainti By: 4 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT