GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC

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

24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 25

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Shelby Greenhill’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s employment by Defendants Cinema West, LLC and Country Club Cinema, LLC (“Defendants”). Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint alleges causes of action for retaliation pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.5, retaliation pursuant to Labor Code section 6310, retaliation pursuant to Government Code section 12940, gender identity discrimination, and failure to correct.

Plaintiff now moves to leave to file a second amended complaint, joining Cinema West Management (“CWM”) as a Defendant under joint employer liability and correcting Plaintiff’s gender identity which was previously incorrectly listed on the first amended complaint. Defendants oppose, arguing that Plaintiff has engaged in an unreasonable delay before amending the complaint and that the proposed changes radically affect the nature of Plaintiff’s discrimination claims.

Trial is currently set in this matter for June 1, 2026.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint based on facts that were assertedly learned at or prior to recent depositions. Plaintiff asserts that on September 3, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendants’ human resources director, Rashann Flores (“Flores”), who testified that “David Corkhill Management Company managed CC Cinema and its employees when Greenhill was an employee. There was an interrelation of operation, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership and financial control between the management company and CC Cinema.

As a result, David Corkill Management Company was a joint employer of Greenhill.” (Telfer Decl., ¶ 6.) David Corkill Management Company has since been renamed to Cinema West Management Company, LLC. (Id.) Counsel had learned of the misidentification of Plaintiff’s gender identity “prior to [Plaintiff’s] deposition.” (Telfer

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 25

Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendants argue that the request should be denied as trial upcoming, and because Plaintiff waited more than a year after filing the first amended complaint before bringing the instant motion to amend.

Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; see also Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for leave to amend on eve of trial.) However, absent prejudice, delay alone is not a ground for denying a motion for leave to amend.

If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [citing Higgins v. Del Faro, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at pp. 564-565].)

In this case, Plaintiff presents evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel first learned of CWM’s involvement in Defendants’ organizations before Flores’ deposition on September 3, 2025. Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendants were notified on December 10, 2025 and December 29, 2025 respectively of the gender identification issue and Plaintiff’s desire to add CWM as a Defendant. After stipulation could not be reached, a request for an application shortening time to hear the pending motion was filed on January 8, 2026. Defendants present no evidence that Plaintiff was aware of the error in the complaint or the existence of CWM prior to the date attested to by Plaintiff’s counsel.

As noted above, great liberality exists in allowing the amendment of complaints. Only very rarely will “a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his or her pleading so that he or she may properly present his or her case. Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) The Court does not find that unreasonable delay occurred here. Further, the Court notes that as Defendants are aware of their corporate structure, they should have been on notice that Plaintiff may seek to allege claims against CWM based on interrelationships between the organizations.

Defendants argue that the proposed amendment “is a radical departure from the allegations of the initial Complaint and the Amended Complaint” because the existing complaints “fashioned this case as one of employment discrimination against a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 25

‘transgender woman.’ Now, counsel wishes to amend to state that the discrimination wasn’t on account of Plaintiff being a transgender woman, but because she is a nonbinary female.” (Opp., p. 5:5-11.)[1] However, Defendants cite to no authority in support of their argument that “[t]his is an entirely different status and supposed reason for the discrimination alleged,” or why Defendants might be prejudiced by such an amendment. The Court finds that Defendants have not shown that probable prejudice would result from the proposed amendment.

Defendant argues that the instant motion should be denied because CWM did not exist until July 9, 2024, and therefore could not have anything to do with the alleged discrimination against Plaintiff. This argue goes to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations, which is not generally a ground for denial of a motion for leave to amend. While the Court may deny leave to amend where the facts are undisputed and it is clear that no cause of action can be stated as a matter of law, the Court does not find that the proposed amendments present such a circumstance here based on the proposed pleadings and arguments presented by the Parties at this time. (See Komorsky v.

Farmers Ins. Exch. (2019) 33 Cal. App. 5th 960, 971.) Rather, when the adequacy of the pleadings is unclear, “the proper course of action [is] to permit amendment, after which the defendants [may test] the complaint’s sufficiency via demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 636, 643.) The ruling on this motion is, of course, without prejudice to Defendants’ ability to file any applicable or appropriate motions to test the sufficiency of the pleadings.

Disposition

Given that the Court has concluded this matter lacks probable prejudice and inexcusable delay, leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than February 23, 2026. Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the Second Amended Complaint.[2]

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] Plaintiff’s motion makes it clear that Plaintiff is non-binary and utilizes they/them

pronouns. The opposition appears to misgender Plaintiff in their opposition, and Counsel is admonished to avoid such mistakes in future filings. (See Opp., pp. 2:12; 2:25; 5:9.) [2] To the extent Defendant asserts that the trial date should be continued, such

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV003721: GREENHILL vs CINEMA WEST LLC 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 25

requested relief is not properly before the Court at this time through the current motion and, in any event, must be made before Department 47. (See Local Rule 1.05(B).) As such, the Court does not address it herein.