Neeley, Individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Wellness Together

25CV000155: NEELEY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES, vs WELLNESS TOGETHER 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by JANELLE NEELEY, individually, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (Plaintiff) CRS# 471362279930 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 05/29/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Motion for Leave PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by JANELLE NEELEY, individually, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act on 05/08/2026 is Granted.

The motion of Plaintiff for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On 6/18/25, Plaintiff Neeley filed this putative class action, Neeley v. Wellness Together, 25CV000155.

On 3/17/26, the Court granted the motion of defendant to consolidate Neeley v. Wellness Together, 25CV000155 (Class action), and Neeley v. Wellness Together, 25CV138991, (PAGA Action) for all purposes.

On 3/18/26, Plaintiff Neeley filed a First Amended Complaint. On 4/17/25 Defendant Wellness Together filed an answer.

On 5/8/26, Plaintiff Neeley filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that would add Pooja Bakshi (“Ms. Bakshi”) as an additional class representative. The proposed SAC would add no new claims and would not alter the proposed class definition

Defendant Wellness Together opposes the motion on the basis that it intends to file a motion to compel Neeley to arbitrate his claims and that the addition of a new plaintiff would complicate the case.

On 5/22/26, Defendant Wellness Together filed a motion to compel Neeley to arbitrate his claims. That motion is set for 6/16/26.

ANALYSIS

The trial court has discretion to allow amendments to the pleadings “in the furtherance of justice.” C.C.P. § 473. “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for 25CV000155: NEELEY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES, vs WELLNESS TOGETHER 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by JANELLE NEELEY, individually, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (Plaintiff) CRS# 471362279930 in Department 21 judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kitterege Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) (See also Tung v. Chicago Title Company (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, 747.)

Defendant has not demonstrated how amending the complaint to add a new plaintiff will cause material prejudice. Neeley and Bakshi could file separate cases, the cases would be related cases, and Defendant would need to file a second motion to compel arbitration. Putative class actions commonly have more than one named plaintiff and Defendants must file motions to compel arbitration directed to both plaintiffs.

The court ORDERS that Plaintiff must file the proposed SAC on or before 6/12/26.

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.