Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 08, 2026 The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-24-001951 - HERNANDEZ, KEIRA vs VALLEY HOME JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - DROPPED at the request for moving party Oakdale Irrigation District, who was dismissed from the lawsuit on June 30, 2026.
CV-25-003678 - JOSEPH, BRADLEY BRICK vs SANDHU, NARENDER KAUR - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint - GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay all fees for any person who needs to be redeposed and Defendant may seek attorney fees for additional time spent due to the lateness of the amendment.
California maintains a strong policy favoring amendment of pleadings and leave to amend should be liberally granted absent a showing of substantial prejudice, unreasonable delay causing prejudice, or clear futility. Plaintiff seeks to add employment-related causes of action arising from the same employment relationship, workplace injury, and post-injury events that form the basis of the existing action. Plaintiff contends that additional discovery obtained during the litigation revealed facts supporting FEHA and Labor Code claims not asserted in the original complaint.
Plaintiff's showing regarding diligence is weak. Many of the facts supporting the proposed employment claims - including the alleged misclassification, wage practices, accommodation requests, and termination - were known to Plaintiff before the motion was filed. Further, Plaintiff relies heavily on an assertion that discovery responses received on April 6, 2026, established Defendants employed five or more employees, yet the referenced discovery responses were not submitted with the motion.
Nevertheless, delay alone is generally insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend. P&D Consultants Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4 th 1332 does not lead to a different conclusion; in that case the request was made after the trial readiness conference. The relevant inquiry is whether Defendants have demonstrated substantial prejudice Most of the prejudice cited is to the substantial expansion and recharacterizing of the case, but this is the nature of the allegations rather than through delay.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Considering the policy favoring amendment and the absence of a sufficient showing of prejudice, the motion is GRANTED. Whether this is a good policy or not is a matter left to the legislature. Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of service of the order. Defendants shall respond within the time permitted by law. Under section 473, the Court can make equitable orders, and does so, ordering Plaintiff to pay all deposition fees for any person who must be redeposed based on the change in circumstances, and permitting Defendant to seek attorney fees from this Court for additional time spent due to the delay. (This does not include all work on the new causes of action, but rather the amount caused by the delay.)
CV-26-000086 - BRADFORD, PATTI vs KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES LLC - a) Defendant's