Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services

34-2022-00328643-CU-OE-GDS: Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services 11/13/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave Amend Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to 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. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. 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

34-2022-00328643-CU-OE-GDS: Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services 11/13/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave Amend Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding 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.

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Vanessa Singh’s motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. “The Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).) Leave to amend may be granted at any stage in the proceedings, including trial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 576; Atkinson v Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (Hirsa v.

Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89.) “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047 citing Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Courts apply the policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v Elk Corp., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Here, Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). The proposed changes are summarized by Plaintiff as follows: Plaintiff is adding new facts learned through discovery responses served by DGS on January 12, 2024, specifically regarding the date of Plaintiff’s protected activity occurring around June or July/August 2019, when she opposed DGS’ practice of Skelly officers confirming whichever adverse employment action that DGS offices initiated. The date of the Skelly hearing for the Office Administrative Hearings employee was further pinpointed by Plaintiff’s notes from 2019 that she found among her own papers. [TAC 10:11, paragraph 47]

Additional events occurred around February 2024. Specifically, in retaliation, Jennifer Gothier and Estela Gonzales failed to follow mandatory guidelines for Plaintiff’s reinstatement to DGS by failing to assign her to her prior job in the Examination Unit or to any human resources position within DGS. [TAC 12:19-13:19, paragraphs 58-63]

Plaintiff did not file her request to amend sooner because additional acts of retaliation have occurred throughout this year, continuing through

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00328643-CU-OE-GDS: Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services 11/13/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave Amend Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

today. Based upon this continuing pattern of retaliation, and as objective evidence of Chief Estela Gonzales’ intent to punish Plaintiff beyond her two-step demotion effective in 2019, Plaintiff has also added the Fifth Cause of Action for Constructive Discharge. [TAC 13:22-15:26, paragraphs 64-74]

(Decl. Schaefer, ¶¶ 4-5, 7.) Defendant State of California Department of General Services (“DGS”) filed an opposition. Defendant contends Plaintiff failed to timely file a government tort claim alleging the misconduct forming the basis of her proposed amendment, thereby failing to exhaust her administrative remedies. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s new allegations are barred by the statute of limitations governing when government tort claims must be filed (within six months of the date of injury; Gov’t Code § 911.2(a), and did not apply to file a late claim act.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s new claims are barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel due to claims Plaintiff made in a previous lawsuit in this Court (Case No. 34-2020-00287975), which she dismissed without prejudice. DGS presents no argument that it would suffer undue prejudice specifically stemming from the timing of this motion in relation to the trial date of this case, which is set for September 22, 2025. In reply, Plaintiff argues that she has added allegations regarding facts that occurred since the August 15, 2023 filing of her SAC.

Plaintiff asserts that on March 18, 2024, she amended her Government Tort Claim complaining of retaliation based upon violation of Labor Code 1102.5 and 1102.6 because on February 6, 2024, DGS failed to reinstate Plaintiff to her former position as mandated by Gov. Code section 19140.5. Reply Decl. Schaefer, Ex. E.) Plaintiff asserted that she then, on August 8, 2024, amended her March claim based on the same facts as her amendment, complaining of a continuous pattern of retaliation by Chief Estela Gonzales to constructively discharge and force Plaintiff to resign from DGS. (Reply Decl.

Schaefer, Ex. F.) The Court declines to rule here on whether Plaintiff’s amended claims are barred by the statute of limitations, or by res judicata or collateral estoppel. The Court notes that challenges to the sufficiency of a pleading are more appropriately resolved via demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or other appropriate proceeding. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 citing Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.) This is especially true here where sufficient time exists for pleading challenges given the trial date.

Defendant remains able to object thereby to the Third Amended Complaint once filed and served. Based on the foregoing and the liberal policy in favor of amendments, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed Third Amended Complaint no later than November 25, 2024. Although not required by court rule or statute, plaintiff is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended complaint is presented for filing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00328643-CU-OE-GDS: Vanessa Singh vs. State of California, Department of General Services 11/13/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave Amend Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.