DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV084508·alameda·Civil·Employment Dispute
Hearing todayGRANTED

STICH vs EMPLOYMENT SCREENING PLUS, LLC, et al.

Motion to Amend Complaint

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
517
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffPaul Stich
DefendantEmployment Screening Plus LLC dba EV3 Global
DefendantCountable Tech LLC
DefendantFrank Richards

Ruling

24CV084508: STICH vs EMPLOYMENT SCREENING PLUS, LLC, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Amend Complaint; filed by Paul Stich (Plaintiff) CRS# 839984066866 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Keith Fong

The Motion re: NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF PAUL STICHS MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Paul Stich on 08/18/2026 is Granted.

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Paul Stich initiated this employment dispute matter on July 24, 2024, alleging inter alia age discrimination, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and wrongful termination. Defendants Employment Screening Plus LLC dba EV3 Global (“EV3”), Countable Tech LLC (“Countable”), and Frank Richards (“Richards”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an answer on November 12, 2024.

On July 22, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery responses from EV3, Countable, and Richards. Defendants failed to serve discovery responses pursuant to the Court’s Order. On or about April 30, 2026, default was entered against the Defendants. Defendants have not sought leave to set aside or vacate the default.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his operative pleading to state the amount of damages sought against Defendants. There is no opposition on file to the motion.

A court’s discretion is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings, and 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.)

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. This Order shall not be construed as a determination on the merits or as to the sufficiency of the new claims or damages set forth in the proposed First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint by September 11, 2026. Please note that the proposed First Amended Complaint submitted with the moving papers is NOT deemed filed or served.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 24CV084508: STICH vs EMPLOYMENT SCREENING PLUS, LLC, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Amend Complaint; filed by Paul Stich (Plaintiff) CRS# 839984066866 in Department 517 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share