This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/27/2019 at 00:57:21 (UTC).

MARCUS MARQUEZ VS SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC

Case Summary

On 03/16/2018 a Labor - Other Labor case was filed by MARCUS MARQUEZ against SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC 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:

    ****8500

  • Filing Date:

    03/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MARQUEZ MARCUS

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

9/20/2019: Notice of Ruling

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/24/2019: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GREGG LANDER

9/9/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GREGG LANDER

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

9/9/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Order - ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SHAMMAS INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING

9/19/2019: Order - ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SHAMMAS INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING

DEFENDANT AND PETITIONER SHAMMAS INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION

7/26/2018: DEFENDANT AND PETITIONER SHAMMAS INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION

Objection - Defendant Shammas Investment Company LL's Objections to the Declaration of Kevin T. Barnes Regarding Dismissal of any Individual Allegations in Order to Only Pursue Paga-Only Action

10/22/2018: Objection - Defendant Shammas Investment Company LL's Objections to the Declaration of Kevin T. Barnes Regarding Dismissal of any Individual Allegations in Order to Only Pursue Paga-Only Action

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/7/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

PROOF OF SERVICE

9/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

7/19/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

7/20/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

8/3/2018: Minute Order -

PROOF OF SERVICE RE: RULING ON PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDS TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION ON AUGUST 3, 2018; ETC

8/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE RE: RULING ON PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDS TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION ON AUGUST 3, 2018; ETC

Proof of Service -

5/1/2018: Proof of Service -

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANI'S PETITION FOR ORDER COIIPELLING ARBITRATION

5/1/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANI'S PETITION FOR ORDER COIIPELLING ARBITRATION

DECLARATION OF GREGG LANDER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

5/1/2018: DECLARATION OF GREGG LANDER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

SUMMONS -

3/16/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AC ("PAGA") ILBOR CODE 2698, ET SEQ.] FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES; ETC

3/16/2018: COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AC ("PAGA") ILBOR CODE 2698, ET SEQ.] FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES; ETC

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/16/2019
  • Hearing10/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • Hearing10/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Arbitration Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Marcus Marquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Supplemental Declaration of Gregg Lander ISO of Reply to Lift Stay and For Leave to File First Amended Complaint); Filed by Marcus Marquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketReply (Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Lift Stay and For Leave to File First Amended Complaint); Filed by Marcus Marquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Shammas Investment LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff Marcus Marquez's Motion to Lift Stay and For Leave to File First Amended Complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing on Plaint...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketOrder (Granting Defendant Shammas Investment Company LLC's Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing); Filed by Shammas Investment LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
47 More Docket Entries
  • 04/06/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Shammas Investment LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS.& COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marcus Marquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AC ("PAGA") ILBOR CODE 2698, ET SEQ.] FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Marcus Marquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC698500    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Marcus marquez,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC698500

Hearing Date: November 6, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND for leave to AMEND COMPLAINT

Background

This is a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action. On March 16, 2018, plaintiff Marcus Marquez (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants Shammas Investment LLC (“Shammas”) and Does 1 to 100 for civil penalties under PAGA asserting causes of action for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay all wages, (3) failure to authorize and permit all paid rest periods, (4) failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, (5) violations of Labor Code § 203, (6) failure to fully reimburse work expenses, and (7) violations of Labor Code § 2751.

On October 16, 2019, the court heard the Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay of Litigation and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. The court continued the motion to this date and pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1324(c), deemed the instant motion a request to file an amended pleading. (Minute Order, 10/16/19.) The court continued the hearing to provide parties with the opportunity to address any procedural issues with the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Id.) Plaintiff was to file and serve a new notice of motion for leave to amend that attaches a new proposed FAC and that conforms with the procedural requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324 by October 21, 2019. (Id.) Shammas was to file and serve any supplemental opposition to the new motion by October 28, 2019. (Id.) Further, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer within 10 days to ensure that the parties have accurate addresses for each other for the purpose of providing future notice and proof of service. (Id.)

On October 21, 2019, plaintiff filed and served an “Amended Notice of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.” On October 25, 2019, Shammas filed and served a “Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff Marcus Marquez’s Motion to Lift Stay and for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.” On October 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a “Corrected Amended Notice of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.”

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(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, the 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 CRC 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. CRC 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

When plaintiff first filed the Complaint, he asserted one cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA. (Declaration of Gregg Lander (“Lander Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint included a request for civil penalties in the form of underpaid wages. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Five days after plaintiff filed the Complaint, the controlling law changed and rendered plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages under PAGA arbitrable. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff attempted to amend the Complaint to remove any claim for individualized relief in order to avoid arbitration of the claim. However, Plaintiff’s request to dismiss the request for unpaid wages was denied, and the parties were ordered to arbitrate the wage claim. (Id. at ¶ 3.) On January 15, 2019, this matter was sent to arbitration. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Thereafter, the arbitrator granted Plaintiff’s request to dismiss any claims for unpaid wages, i.e., the claims that had been ordered to arbitration. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff now seeks to amend the Complaint to eliminate any request for unpaid wages from plaintiff’s PAGA cause of action.

Plaintiff’s amended notice of motion properly includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading, which is serially numbered, states what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located, and states what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading. Although the “Supplemental Declaration of Gregg Lander” does not specify the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request was not made earlier, the “Declaration of Gregg Lander” attached to the original motion does include these points. The court finds this prior declaration is sufficient to satisfy the requirements set forth in CRC Rule 3.1324.

In Shammas’s supplemental opposition, Shammas contends plaintiff has been given more than ample time to comply with the mandatory rules governing amendment of the pleadings. However, plaintiff’s amended notice and supplemental declaration still violate CRC Rule 3.1324. (Opp., p. 2.) Shammas notes several issues with plaintiff’s amended notice. Plaintiff addresses this issues and corrects them in “Plaintiff’s Correct Amended Notice of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.” Although plaintiff’s corrected amended notice was filed on October 28, 2019, outside of the bounds of the court’s original order, the court will consider this corrected amended notice. As Shammas’s opposition only raised technical errors with Plaintiff’s amended notice, which Plaintiff has remedied in his corrected amended notice, and not any substantive issues with Plaintiff’s amendment, the court does not see the value in not considering Plaintiff’s corrected amended notice and delaying the inevitable—the granting of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Thus, the court finds Plaintiff’s motion complies with CRC Rule 3.1324.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a standalone version of his FAC within 10 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: November 6, 2019 _____________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court