CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC.

24CV008341: CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC., 09/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 22

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Christian Carrizalez (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Notice.) Plaintiff’s motion is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, as follows.

Moving counsel’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.

Background

Plaintiff initiated this action on April 29, 2024, against Nor Cal Taco, Inc. dba Chando’s Tacos Fair Oaks, Chando’s Roseville, Inc., Chando’s Elk Grove, Inc., Chando’s Citrus Heights, LLC, and Does 1-20, (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleged causes of action for (1) Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 204b, 223, 226.2, 1194; Wage Orders; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, IWC Wage Orders; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks or Pay Wages in Lieu Thereof, Cal.

Labor Code § 226.7, IWC Wage Orders; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay Wages in Lieu Thereof, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, IWC Wage Orders; (5) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, Cal. Labor Code § 226; (6) Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenses, Labor Code § 2802; (7) Violation of Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; and (8) Civil Penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code §§ 2699, et seq. (Complaint.)

Defendants filed their answer on or about September 30, 2024. (Sutton Decl., ¶ 3.)

On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendants with written discovery. (Sutton Decl., ¶ 4.) Prior to the response deadline, the Parties agreed to proceed with early mediation and an informal exchange of evidence to facilitate that mediation. (Id., ¶ 5.) The Parties participated in a full day of mediation of July 20, 2025, but were unable to resolve the lawsuit. (Ibid.) On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff’s Counsel provided Defendants’ Counsel a copy of the proposed FAC and sought a stipulation. (Id., ¶ 6.) Despite numerous requests, Defendants’ Counsel was not authorized to stipulate to the FAC. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Accordingly, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking leave to amend.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 473, subdivision (a)(1), the Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding. As judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit, courts liberally permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1973) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Denial is rarely justified. “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of

24CV008341: CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC., 09/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 22

the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) ¶ 6:639.) As long as no prejudice to defendant is shown, the liberal policy regarding the amendment prevails. (Mesler v. Bragg Mgt. Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 297.)

While California law holds that this leave is to be granted liberally to accomplish substantial justice for both parties (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489), a party requesting leave to amend must also comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment and must state what allegations will be deleted or added and where they are located by page, paragraph and line number. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

Further, the motion must be supported by a separate declaration that specifies the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).) A court does not abuse its discretion by insisting that a party follow the applicable rules of procedure when seeking an amendment. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

Analysis

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) that adds two additional causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Wages Owed at Termination pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201- 203; and (2) Violation of Child Labor Laws pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1301, et seq. (Mot., p. 1:9-11.) Plaintiff identifies the proposed additions by line and paragraph number and also provides a redline copy of the proposed FAC. (Notice, pp. 2-4; Exhibits.)

Plaintiff argues that his request is timely because this matter is still in the early stages of discovery – in light of the Parties’ early mediation, Defendants have not yet responded to Plaintiff’s formal discovery. (Mot., p. 3:5-11; Sutton Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff first proposed these additions shortly after the Parties’ mediation and first sought Defendants’ stipulation to avoid unnecessary motion practice. (Mot., pp. 4:18-5:2.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment given the early stage of the litigation. (Id., p. 5:5- 8.)

The Court concludes this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)-(b).

Disposition

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008341: CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC., 09/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 22

While Plaintiff requests that the Court deem Plaintiff’s FAC filed and served, the Court declines to do so. Plaintiff shall file and serve the FAC by September 29, 2025. Defendants may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the FAC, 35 days if served by mail.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers, striking the sentence at lines 9 through 11 beginning with “It is further ordered ”

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 22 at (916) 874-5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept22 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008341: CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC., 09/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 22

managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/complex-civil-cases.aspx. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.