ENRIQUEZ vs BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, INC., et al.

25CV002684: ENRIQUEZ vs BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, INC., et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 23

Tentative Ruling

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Plaintiff Ricardo Enriquez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED as follows.

Overview

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this wage and hour action against Defendant Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc. (“Defendant”) by filing a class action complaint. On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed the currently operative First Amended Complaint to add a representative claim pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act. In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant classified him as a non-exempt employee. (First Amended Complaint ¶ 14.) In this motion, Plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint to add allegations and the theory that Plaintiff, the Class, and Aggrieved Employees were misclassified as exempt employees. (Nabiev Decl.

Ex. A (proposed Second Amended Complaint with red-line revisions).) In the proposed amendment, Plaintiff also redefines the alleged class to include employees who are “misclassified as an exempt employee.” (Id. at ¶ 24.) Plaintiff does not seek to add any causes of action against Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel avers that the proposed amendment follows Defendant informing Plaintiff’s counsel in the course of the litigation that Plaintiff was classified as an exempt employee. (Nabiev Decl. ¶ 4.) In support of its Opposition, Defendant’s counsel also states he informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff was classified as an exempt employee during the course of the litigation. (Brown Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion.

Discussion

Judicial policy strongly favors allowing amendments of pleadings so long as the authorization does not prejudice the other parties. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [“[A]bsent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings to prevail.”].) “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 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.” (Morgan v.

Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Even where the moving party has unreasonably delayed, “it is an abuse of discretion to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Defendant asks the Court to deny leave to amend on the following grounds: (1) the sham

25CV002684: ENRIQUEZ vs BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, INC., et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 23

pleading doctrine bars the proposed amendment; and (2) the proposed amendment would render Plaintiff’s class claims invalid as to commonality, predominance, typicality, and ascertainability. Defendant argues the Court can deny leave to amend on these grounds because courts have discretion to deny leave to amend where the amendment would be “futile” – citing Foroudi v. The Aerospace Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 992, 1000. The Court is not persuaded that this is a case where amendment would clearly be futile and leave to amend should be denied.

For example, in Foroudi, the proposed amendment was clearly futile because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to the proposed additional claims. (Id. at 1005.) The Court does not agree that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is clearly futile as a “sham pleading” or that it clearly gives rise to class issues. In any event, these challenges are better reserved for a pleadings challenge or class certification motion. (See Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 1048 [observing the preferred practice of granting leave to amend and allowing the parties to test the amendment’s legal sufficiency by a pleadings challenge or other appropriate proceedings.].)

Plaintiff has timely brought a motion to amend and Defendant does not argue that the amendment would prejudice Defendant. The Court sees no prejudice to Defendant given this case is in its early stages and there is no trial date currently set. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is given leave to file the Second Amended Complaint attached to the Nabiev Decl. as Ex. B. If Defendant wishes to challenge the legal sufficiency of the Second Amended Complaint, it may do so through the appropriate motion.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is given leave to file the Second Amended Complaint attached to the Nabiev Decl. as Ex. B. Plaintiff must file the amended pleading by no later than February 13, 2026.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 23 at 916-874-5754 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.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept23 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002684: ENRIQUEZ vs BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, INC., et al. 01/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 23

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.