This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 17:50:51 (UTC).

MICHAEL AHDUNKO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

On 12/08/2017 MICHAEL AHDUNKO filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6341

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AHDUNKO MICHAEL

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 25

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HANEY STEVEN H. ESQ.

YOUNG GREGORY LANE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

DAVID J. WEISS

WEISS DAVID J.

MCCLAIN KATHERINE LYNN

 

Court Documents

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

5/23/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

ORDER RE: DEMURRER BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLAINT

5/23/2018: ORDER RE: DEMURRER BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6/11/2018: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Unknown

7/20/2018: Unknown

[)NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION RO COMPEL DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO FURTHER RESPOND RO FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT LAW, SET TWO, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE MOUNT OF $2,760.00; ETC

8/28/2018: [)NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION RO COMPEL DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO FURTHER RESPOND RO FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT LAW, SET TWO, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE MOUNT OF $2,760.00; ETC

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/28/2018: APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

9/28/2018: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN TILE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES OF PLAINTIFF MICHAEL AHDIJNKO'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINT

9/28/2018: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN TILE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES OF PLAINTIFF MICHAEL AHDIJNKO'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S EMPLOYEES CODY BLODGETT, DENNIS COTA, ERIC PETERSON, KENNETH FERNANDEZ, MATT HERZBERG, MICHAEL NORTHERN, RONALD HORETSKI, SCOTT HALE

10/1/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S EMPLOYEES CODY BLODGETT, DENNIS COTA, ERIC PETERSON, KENNETH FERNANDEZ, MATT HERZBERG, MICHAEL NORTHERN, RONALD HORETSKI, SCOTT HALE

Order

11/6/2018: Order

Minute Order

11/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

11/21/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

12/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/20/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/20/2018: Unknown

Notice

1/7/2019: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

1/15/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

80 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by MICHAEL AHDUNKO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Order (re terminating evidentiary and monetary sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion for Sanctions)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an Order re County Witnesses) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex parte for an Order re County Witnesses); Filed by MICHAEL AHDUNKO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order re County Witnesses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by MICHAEL AHDUNKO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Order (re plaintiff's ex parte application)

    Read MoreRead Less
137 More Docket Entries
  • 01/11/2018
  • DECLARATION OF ALYSSA S. GJEDSTED, ESQ. RE INABILITY TO MEET AND CONFER BEFORE FILING RESPONSIVE PLEADING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by MICHAEL AHDUNKO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by MICHAEL AHDUNKO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by MICHAEL AHDUNKO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) HARASSMENT BASED UPON RACE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND/OR ANCESTRY IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT ("FEHA"), CAL. GOV. CODE 12940(J), ET. SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC686341 Hearing Date: February 5, 2022 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

michael ahdunko,

Plaintiff,

vs.

county of los angeles, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 686341

Hearing Date:

January 5, 2022

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiff Michael Ahdunko (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against Defendant County of Los Angeles (the “County”) on December 8, 2017. Plaintiff was a probationary firefighter with the Los Angeles County Fire Department until he was terminated from his position on May 16, 2017. (Compl., 1, 23.) The Complaint asserts statutory FEHA causes of action for harassment based on race, national origin, and/or ancestry, discrimination based on race, national origin, and/or ancestry, and failure to prevent discrimination and/or harassment based upon race, national origin and/or ancestry.[1]

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The County opposes.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” ((Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” ((Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” ((Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

Plaintiff asserts that subsequent to the filing of the original Complaint, and in preparation for trial, it became apparent that while the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief sought “injunctive relief,” it did not specify that the injunctive relief sought was to include reinstatement. (Mot. at p. 3:5-8.) Plaintiff thus seeks leave to amend the Complaint to seek injunctive relief “including hiring, reinstatement, upgrading, admission, and/or restoration of Plaintiff to his previous position with the County.” (Haney Decl., 2, Exs. A and B.) Plaintiff notes that under FEHA, “affirmative relief” includes “the authority to order reinstatement of an employee…” ((Gov. Code, 12926, subd. (a).)

In opposition, the County first argues that the motion for leave to amend should be denied because it is untimely. However, delay alone, absent prejudice, does not warrant denial of a motion for leave to amend. ((Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564 [“Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.”].) Thus, the critical inquiry is whether the County will be prejudiced by the granting of the motion. The County notes that discovery has been closed since October 14, 2019. (Goldsmith Decl., 5.) It argues that if Plaintiff’s motion is granted, the County will “be prejudiced in not having developed in discovery Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, including a claim of reinstatement.” (Opp’n at p. 4:8-9.) However, as Plaintiff notes, the original Complaint already had a prayer for injunctive relief, and the proposed amendment only seeks to clarify what specific injunctive relief is being sought. (Haney Decl., 2, Ex. B.)

Second, the County argues that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not seek reinstatement in the Government Claims Act claim he presented to the County. However, as noted by Plaintiff, “[a]ctions brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. . . have. . . been held exempt from the claim-presentation requirements of the general tort claims act. . . . The procedural guidelines and the time framework provided in the FEHA are special rules for this particular type of claim which control over the general rules governing claims against governmental entities. The FEHA not only creates a statutory cause of action, but sets out a comprehensive scheme for administrative enforcement, emphasizing conciliation, persuasion and voluntary compliance, and containing specific limitations periods.” (Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 701, 710–711 [internal citations omitted, emphasis in original]; see also Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 861, 863, “actions seeking redress for employment discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). . . are not subject to the claim-presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act. . . . .”). Third, the County argues that the motion should be denied because the relief Plaintiff seeks is contrary to the County’s policies and procedures and the public interest. The County argues that under the Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules, Rule 1.02, the County has an “exclusive right to determine … the right to hire or rehire.” (Goldsmith Decl., 8, Ex. C, p. 1.) As this argument concerns Plaintiff’s ability to state a valid prayer for relief, the Court declines to consider this as a grounds for denial of leave to amend. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [“the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings”].)

Lastly, the County argues that the motion should be denied because reinstatement of Plaintiff is not feasible. The Court notes that the County cites to no binding authority in support of this argument.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted. The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve the First Amended Complaint within 3 days of the date of this Order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: January 5, 2022

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court


[1] On May 23, 2018, the Court sustained without leave to amend the County’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for breach of oral contract.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HANEY STEVEN HAROLD