Eric Rojas vs Mission Linen Supply

Case Number

22CV03883

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/17/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Leave

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amended complaint is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. The motion is granted to allow plaintiff’s successor-in-interest, Victoria Maldonado, to continue this action. The motion is denied as to Ashley Savage.

2. The motion is denied as to all other of plaintiff’s proposed amendments to the complaint.

Background:

This action commenced on October 5, 2022, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Eric Rojas (“Rojas”) against defendant Mission Linen Supply (“defendant”) for: (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (3) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations; (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination; (5) Violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (6) Violation of Labor Code section 432.6; and (7) Retaliation.

As alleged in the complaint:

Rojas began his employment with defendant in May 2005. (Compl., ¶ 5.) Rojas’ duties were to load trucks with products as well as order and sell products and acquire new clients. (Compl., ¶ 6.) Rojas excelled in his work performance. (Compl., ¶ 7.)

In June 2020, Rojas sustained a disability and took medical leave after obtaining approval from defendant. (Compl., ¶ 8.) On June 28, 2021, Rojas resumed his employment but, after approximately one week of work, Rojas reaggravated his injury or experienced an onset of injury which prompted a follow-up medical evaluation. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Rojas was put back on disability. (Compl., ¶ 10.)

From July 2, 2021, to January 1, 2022, Rojas regularly provided written medical report status updates to defendant. (Compl., ¶ 11.)

Rojas was medically cleared and returned to work on January 1, 2022, subject to medical restrictions. (Compl., ¶ 12.) Defendant informed Rojas that they could not provide Rojas with light duty or any other position. (Ibid.) Defendant did not engage in a good faith interactive process with Rojas or provide him with any accommodations. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Defendant’s condition for Rojas to resume any kind of work with defendant was contingent on Rojas becoming fully medically cleared and pass a “fit for duty test.” (Ibid.)

On March 1, 2022, Rojas was fully medically cleared for work, but, on his return, defendant took away Rojas’ route as well as his seniority level. (Compl., ¶ 14.) Defendant then reduced Rojas’ seniority level even further. (Compl., ¶ 15.)

Rojas died on August 8, 2024. (Maldonado Dec., ¶ 4 & Exh. 1; Savage Dec., ¶ 4 & Exh. 1.)

Rojas filed a motion for leave to amend complaint on December 24, 2024. However, it should have been filed as two separate motions. The first is a motion to continue action by plaintiff’s successors-in-interest, and the second is a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. The motion will be ruled upon as if it were properly filed as two separate motions.

Defendant opposes the motion.

Analysis:

            Motion to Continue Action by Successors-in-Interest

“On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 provides:

“(a) The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding or to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following:

“(1) The decedent’s name.

“(2) The date and place of the decedent’s death.

“(3) ‘No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.’

“(4) If the decedent’s estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest.

“(5) Either of the following, as appropriate, with facts in support thereof:

“(A) ‘The affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.’

“(B) ‘The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.’

“(6) ‘No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.’

“(7) ‘The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.’

“(b) Where more than one person executes the affidavit or declaration under this section, the statements required by subdivision (a) shall be modified as appropriate to reflect that fact.

“(c) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.” (Italics added.)

Here, both Victoria Maldonado (“Maldonado”) and Ashley Savage (“Savage”) have executed and filed declarations, under penalty of perjury, with attached certified copies of Rojas’ death certificate. Maldonado is Rojas’ mother. (Maldonado Dec., ¶ 3.) Savage was Rojas’ fiancé. (Savage Dec., ¶ 3.)

Both declarations are substantially similar, stating Rojas’ name at paragraph 3, the date and place of Rojas’ death at paragraph 4, that “no proceeding was or is now pending in California for administration of the decedent, Eric Rojas’ estate” at paragraph 5, that each of them are one of Rojas’ successors-in-interest as defined under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.11 at paragraph 6, and that no other person has a superior right to . . . be substituted for Rojas in this action, at paragraph 7.

“ ‘[D]ecedents successor in interest’ means the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11.)

Here, the court is satisfied that Maldonado, as Rojas’s mother, is a proper successor-in-interest, and has standing under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60.

However, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing that Savage, as Rojas’ former fiancé, is a proper successor in interest. Plaintiff has provided no authority that would allow the court to conclude that, absent a valid Will or other testamentary document, a fiancé could continue this action on Rojas’ behalf, and nothing in Probate Code section 6400, et seq. indicates that a fiancé has any rights to the estate of Rojas or in any other way could be designated a successor-in-interest.

As such, the court will grant the request that the action be continued by Maldonado but deny as to Savage.

            Motion to Amend Complaint

As an initial matter, Rojas misunderstands the function of the Trial Confirmation Conference scheduled for February 28, 2025. As counsel was informed, trial could commence on that date. In Santa Barbara County, the Trial Confirmation Conference is treated as the trial date for all purposes, including discovery cut-off and the filing of dispositive motions.

Pursuant to Code of Civil procedure section 473(a)(1), the court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)

“Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted [citation], provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. [Citation.]” (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

“(a) Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

“(2) State 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

“(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

“(b) Supporting declaration

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

“(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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

“(c) Form of amendment

The court may deem a motion to file an amendment to a pleading to be a motion to file an amended pleading and require the filing of the entire previous pleading with the approved amendments incorporated into it.

“(d) Requirements for amendment to a pleading

An amendment to a pleading must not be made by alterations on the face of a pleading except by permission of the court. All alterations must be initialed by the court or the clerk.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.)

Rojas seeks to amend the complaint to include:

“Specific activities and conduct of Defendant during the last week of Decedent’s employment coinciding with the week of Decedent’s passing, spawning new allegations and new claims;” and

“Further investigation following Decedent’s death including witness interviews, yielding new, additional, and corroborative information regarding some of the claims and allegations in the complaint.” (Motion, p. 4, ll. 6-12.)

In reality, Rojas seeks to delete nearly every paragraph in the original complaint, replace them with new paragraphs, and add two additional causes of action (Hostile Work Environment Harassment and Wrongful Death).

Defendant’s arguments in opposition to the motion to amend include: (1) Rojas was dilatory in seeking to amend the complaint with factual allegations that were either known or should have been known by Rojas prior to his death, and (2) The undue delay in seeking leave to amend will prejudice defendant in light of the impending trial date and Rojas’ inability to testify. Defendant also argues that the proposed wrongful death cause of action would be futile. However, the court finds the first two arguments have merit and will not need to address the final argument.

Because the proposed amended complaint almost entirely replaces the language of the original complaint, the court will only set forth a few examples of the proposed changes.

“Decedent, however, was generally unliked by management at Mission Linen because he was vocal about vindicating employees who were aggrieved or disenfranchised by the actions of Mission Linen. Decedent’s proactive and involved nature was not welcomed or met with approval by management. This disposition of Defendant continued throughout Decedent’s employment and ultimately metastasized into hostility towards Decedent.” (Proposed Amended Complaint, ¶ 11.)

“Defendant has previously engaged in retaliatory conduct against its employees who sought vindication of their rights.” (Proposed Amended Complaint, ¶ 14.)

“For instance, when a particular former employee of Defendant’s sought vindication of their rights against Defendant, there was a sudden change and escalation of duties in response, producing unbearable stress upon the employee and forcing the employee to resign. That employee worked in a similar position as Decedent.” (Proposed Amended Complaint, ¶ 15.)

“Prior to the conclusion of one year, and during his medical leave, Decedent briefly came to the site of his employment for the sole purpose of discussing retention of his seniority. According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement Defendant has with the union regarding its employees, seniority benefits are divested upon exceeding one year of consecutive leave of absence.” (Proposed Amended Complaint, ¶ 17.)

“Nevertheless, Defendant, through its actions, waived this condition or provision by enabling other disabled employees on medical leave who exceeded one year of consecutive leave to retain their seniority benefits, notwithstanding.” (Proposed

Amended Complaint, ¶ 18.)

The motion claims that the new allegations were discovered because: “After learning of the death of Plaintiff Rojas, Counsel for Plaintiffs engaged in investigation to learn about the circumstances of the death, including interviewing witnesses.” (Reply, p. 2, ll. 27-28.)

Rojas provides no persuasive reason why the additional allegations were not discovered and included in the original complaint, which was filed in 2022. Instead, Rojas implicitly blames defendant for the failure to discover the facts due to a delay in initiating discovery. The placing of blame on defendant for his own failure to include the allegations is unwarranted. There are many reasons a defendant may want to delay discovery based on the allegations of a complaint. It is a plaintiff’s duty to conduct a diligent investigation of the facts and circumstances of their claim and include them in the complaint. The failure to do so, especially after more than two years of litigation, is unreasonable.

In addition to Rojas’ unreasonable delay in moving to amend the complaint with facts that he knew or should have known, the proposed amendments would cause significant prejudice to defendant. Despite Rojas’ argument to the contrary, there is a trial date set for February 28, 2025. Defendant would be effectively prevented from conducting the discovery to defend itself against the significant additional allegations. And, discovery would absolutely be necessary given that Rojas proposes to add causes of action for Hostile Work Environment Harassment and Wrongful Death.

The motion to amend will be denied.

While not argued by defendant, and thus not considered in ruling on the motion, it is worth noting that many of the proposed amendments would be improper on the grounds that they constitute matters that did not exist when Rojas commenced his action.

An amended complaint concerns the same general facts as the original complaint. A supplemental complaint serves a different purpose. “Primarily, a supplemental complaint deals with matters occurring after commencement of the action and it only sets up matters consistent with the original complaint.” (ITT Gilfillan, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 581, 586.) “Matters which occur after the filing of a complaint may not be alleged by amendment to the complaint, but must be brought into the action by means of a supplemental complaint.” (Hebert v. Los Angeles Raiders, Ltd. (1991) 23 Cal.App.4th 414, 426.)

The original complaint was based on alleged facts existing in 2022. Portions of the proposed amended complaint are based on alleged facts occurring largely in 2024 (well after the filing of the original complaint).

“It is a settled rule of our law that the plaintiff’s right of action must exist when he commences his action. [Citation.] The plea that an action is prematurely brought is a perfect defense to the merits. [Citation.] The defect cannot even be cured by a supplemental complaint founded on what subsequently occurred.” (Gardner v. Shreve (1949) 89 Cal.App.2d 804, 810.)