Theodore C. Zayner
(Subscribe to View)
July 12, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Nov 08, 2018
Orr V. Traina, Et Al.
Joyce Chin V. Katherine Ngai-Pesic
Alexis Winter V. Norcal-Cb-First St., Inc. Dba Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, Et Al.
Charles Wilhelm, Et Al. V. William Yuan, Et Al.
Sanchez V. County Of Santa Clara, Et Al.
Wilmington Trust, National Association V. Nelson R Herrera, Et Al.
Naren Chaganti V. Cricket Communications, Inc., Et Al.
Sonia Morales V. David Gardner, Et Al.
Fujihara, Et Al. V. Rebecca Jean Catering, Et Al.
Plaintiff brings this motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC), slightly more than four months before the date set for trial (11/26/2018) and less than five months before the mandatory five year period within which the case must be brought to trial, or be dismissed. (12/09/2018; see Code of Civil Procedure §§583.310, et seq.) The motion is DENIED. The proposed Third Amended Complaint seeks, at this late date, to add a wholly new cause of action for alleged violation of Labor Code §1197.5 (the California Equal Pay Act). Plaintiff’s supporting declaration does not fully and satisfactorily address any of the factors enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court agrees with defendants’ arguments that the proposed new cause of action would add significant new factual allegations for discovery and proof at trial, and a wholly new remedy – without having alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act (GCA) regarding this proposed new claim. This does not appear to be alleged at all, let alone with sufficient particularity to comply with the claim filing requirements. In addition, the allegations do not appear to be alleged with sufficient particularity, in that alleged comparator(s) are not sufficiently and specifically identified. Further, the court is not satisfied that plaintiff has justified or can justify the lengthy delay in attempting to bring such a claim, nor has plaintiff explained with any credible justification why it could not or should not have been brought earlier. Finally, the court notes the proposed new cause of action not only appears it may likely be barred by plaintiff’s failure to allege compliance and comply with the GCA, but also by the limitations period on bringing the cause of action and on the statutory remedies available, as expressly set forth in the statute.
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.