JOHN DOE VS. MARINA ALLEN, ET AL

9/11/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 33 of 38

2:00 PM LINE: 11 25-CIV-08970 JOHN DOE VS. MARINA ALLEN, ET AL

JOHN DOE LAUREL MOUSSEAU MARINA ALLEN CONNOR M DAY

PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the following reasons, Plaintiff John Doe’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED as to the proposed amended pleading attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Laurel Mousseau filed September 2, 2026.

The Court may, in furtherance of justice and upon such terms as may be proper, allow amendment of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a)(1), 576.) California follows a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments to pleadings so that cases may be decided on their merits, provided the amendment does not prejudice the substantial rights of the opposing party. (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 sets forth the procedural requirements for a motion for leave to amend, including the contents of the motion and supporting declaration. Plaintiff did not file a separate noticed motion following the Court’s order shortening time, apparently relying on the ex parte application, supporting declaration, proposed pleading, and the Court’s order setting the present hearing. Defendants nevertheless received notice, filed a substantive opposition, and do not contend that the absence of a separately filed notice of motion impaired their ability to oppose the requested amendment. Under these circumstances, the Court declines to deny leave based solely on that procedural irregularity.

Trial has not been set. Defendants principally contend that Plaintiff’s proposed PAGA amendments are legally insufficient and would cause unnecessary prejudice and additional discovery. In reply, however, Plaintiff submitted a revised proposed First Amended Complaint that omits the PAGA claim under Labor Code section 202, omits the challenged representative meal- and rest-period claims, omits the PAGA allegations against RxAccess LLC, and more specifically alleges the basis for PAGA and Labor Code section 558.1 liability against Defendant Marina Allen individually. These revisions substantially address the objections raised in Defendants’ opposition and correspond to the limitations Defendants alternatively requested.

No sufficient prejudice from permitting the revised amendment has been demonstrated, particularly where no trial date has been set. To the extent Defendants continue to challenge the legal sufficiency of the amended allegations, those issues are more appropriately addressed through a demurrer, motion for

9/11/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 34 of 38

judgment on the pleadings, or other appropriate responsive proceeding. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Laurel Mousseau filed September 2, 2026, within 10 days of notice of entry of the order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action. The Court directs the parties to San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) regarding the wording of proposed orders.