This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/25/2018 at 09:32:34 (UTC).

Bernoldor Hair Vs 2mangas Inc Et Al

Case Summary

On 04/19/2018 a Labor - Wrongful Termination case was filed by Bernoldor Hair against 2mangas Inc in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3254

  • Filing Date:

    04/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Susan Bryant-deason

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Bernoldor Hair

Defendants and Respondents

Does 1 To 99

Lardas Anthony

Roes 1 To 99

Mcdonalds Inc.

2mangas Inc.

Rodriguez Serafin

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

7/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/6/2018: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Opposition

10/25/2018: Opposition

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF CORINNE D. SPENCER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

6/29/2018: DECLARATION OF CORINNE D. SPENCER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS 2MANGAS, INC., ANTHONY LARDAS, AND SERAFIN RODRIGUEZ? NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF BENOLDOR HAIR?S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; IPROPO

6/29/2018: DEFENDANTS 2MANGAS, INC., ANTHONY LARDAS, AND SERAFIN RODRIGUEZ? NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF BENOLDOR HAIR?S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; IPROPO

DEFENDANTS 2MANGAS, INC., ANTHONY LARDAS AND SERAFIN RODRIGUEZ'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ?170.6; ETC.

6/29/2018: DEFENDANTS 2MANGAS, INC., ANTHONY LARDAS AND SERAFIN RODRIGUEZ'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ?170.6; ETC.

Minute Order

7/9/2018: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/11/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/12/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

6/20/2018: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

NOTICE RE; CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

6/11/2018: NOTICE RE; CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/21/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/21/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

5/3/2018: NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

SUMMONS

4/19/2018: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CALIFORNIA GOV. CODE 12941 ET SEQ); ETC

4/19/2018: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CALIFORNIA GOV. CODE 12941 ET SEQ); ETC

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/10/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 42, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Summons (on Amended Complaint (1st)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by Bernoldor Hair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • Notice (name extension) (and request for withdrawal of plaintiff's request for entry of default against defendant McDonald's Inc.); Filed by Bernoldor Hair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • at 08:31 AM in Department 42, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Minute Order ( (DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS, 2MANGAS, ANTHONY LARDSA AND SERAFIN R...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2018
  • Reply (name extension) (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer to Complaint); Filed by 2Mangas, Inc. (Defendant); Anthony Lardas (Defendant); Serafin Rodriguez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • Opposition (name extension) (PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT); Filed by Bernoldor Hair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Bernoldor Hair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 05/21/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Bernoldor Hair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Bernoldor Hair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • Notice of Status Conference filed; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CALIFORNIA GOV. CODE 12941 ET SEQ); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Bernoldor Hair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC703254    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

bernoldor hair,

Plaintiff,

v.

2Mangas, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC703254

Hearing Date: February 27, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’S motion for leave to file third amended complaint

Background

On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff Bernoldor Hair (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants 2Mangas, Lardas, Rodriguez, McDonald’s USA, LLC erroneously sued as McDonalds, Inc. (Defendant McDonalds), and Does 1 to 99 alleging causes of action related to workplace gender and sexual orientation discrimination and harassment based on Government Code sections 12940 et seq.

On December 7, 2018, after the Court partially sustained a demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant harassed and retaliated against him on the basis of his gender and sexual orientation.

On February 22, 2019, the Court sustained 2Mangas’, Lardas’s, and Rodriguez’s demurrer to the first cause of action with leave to amend. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to separate the first cause of action into two causes of action - one for employment discrimination and one for sexual harassment.

Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on March 4, 2019. The SAC alleged causes of actions for (1) Employment Discrimination, (2) Sexual Harassment-Hostile Work Environment, (3) Sexual Orientation Discrimination, (4) Gender Discrimination, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (6) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination from Occurring, (7) Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act, (8) Wrongful Termination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, (9) Racial Discrimination, (10) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq. The tenth cause of action is only against Defendant McDonalds.

On July 22, 2019, the Court sustained a motion to strike the tenth cause of action for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq. because it was outside the scope of the Court’s previous leave to amend. The Court specifically noted, however, that the order for the motion to strike was “not intended to bar Plaintiff’s right to seek leave of court to amend the Complaint by filing a noticed motion.” (Order 7/22/19.)

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking leave to amend to add this tenth cause of action for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed an identical complaint in case number 20STCV05110 against only Defendant McDonalds which includes all ten causes of action as originally listed in the SAC. (Opposition, Ex. 1.) On February 13, 2020, Defendant McDonalds filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) states: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms, as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, and therefore, courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“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.”].)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located. Rule 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: “(1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Discussion

Proposed Amendments

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) to add a cause of action for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 et seq. Plaintiff states that this cause of action arises out of Defendant McDonalds’ rehiring of Plaintiff, which occurred after the filing of the instant case. (Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) The new cause of action alleges that Plaintiff faced retaliation for filing the original claim against Defendant McDonalds. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 13.) The alleged retaliation for this cause of action occurred between November 4, 2018, to December 4, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

Prejudice

In its opposition, Defendant McDonalds claims that there is undue prejudice resulting from undue delay and from the filing of the identical complaint under case number 20STCV05110. Defendant also asserts that this cause of action is not related to the other claims, and the proposed cause of action is futile.

The Court finds Defendant’s claims of prejudice to be unpersuasive. In his reply, Plaintiff explains that due to the statute of limitations, this Court's impacted motions calendar, and the unavailability of a hearing until six months after the filing of this motion, Plaintiff was forced to file a separate lawsuit to preserve his ability to pursue the additional cause of action. Further, allowing leave would enable the court to completely consolidate the cases into one, which both parties state they desire. (Opposition p.5:3-5; Reply p. 2.)

Defendant McDonalds’ claim of undue delay is unsupported by the record. Plaintiff discovered the new facts concerning the additional cause of action by December 4, 2018. Plaintiff attempted to add this cause of action in the Second Amended Complaint, filed on March 4, 2019. This amounts to only a three-month period of delay in bringing the new cause of action during which time multiple demurrers were also pending. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff did not unduly delay in bringing the retaliation cause of action.

Defendant McDonalds also contends that this cause of action is unrelated to the other nine causes of action. The Court disagrees. Defendant McDonalds argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a joint relationship. However, the Court has already rejected this argument in ruling on Defendant’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint. Defendant McDonalds’ argument of futility is also unavailing. The Court’s review of the proposed retaliation cause of action indicates that it is not apparent that a demurrer would be sustained to this cause of action for failure to state a claim.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file his Third Amended Complaint within 5 days. Defendants are to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of service of the Third Amended Complaint. The Case Management Conference is continued to April 10, 2020 at 8:30 am.

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 27, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court