Got some great news today! For over a year now, Sarah Schlehr of the Schlehr Law Firm and Morgan Ricketts of Ricketts & Yang have been pursuing an appeal in one of the Schlehr Law Firm's employment rights cases. Thanks to briefing drafted by Sarah and Morgan and oral argument by Sarah, the plaintiff has won a complete victory on appeal after years of fighting for justice in trial court, and will now have the right to assert his Fair Employment and Housing Act claims against his former employer.
Initially, the plaintiff brought his claims in a lawsuit filed in March 2012. In September of that year, the Court of Appeal invalidated the law he had relied on in bringing the lawsuit. (Specifically, Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, 209 Cal. APp. 4th 750 (2012), held that a claim of wrongful termination under Labor Code section 132a could only be brought before the Worker's Compensation Board of Appeals.)
Subsequently, the Schlehr Law Firm then substituted into the case, with Morgan Ricketts handling much of the case briefing and court appearances, and despite clear, legally-supported briefing explaining to the court why the plaintiff had to be allowed the opportunity to allege different claims based on the same facts, the court prevented the plaintiff from doing so, and as a result, his case was dismissed.
The defendant howled when we filed our (multiple) appeals - even moving for sanctions against us, arguing that we had litigated the case in bad faith and should be forced to pay $100,000 in attorney's fees. But the Schlehr Law Firm refused to be intimidated into giving up, and persisted in the appeal.
Today, one month after the court heard oral argument, and two months before its deadline to rule, Division Five of the Second District of the California Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the case. The court noted that the defendant could not articulate any legal prejudice that would be caused by the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint, and had cited no authority for the proposition that increased or expended litigation costs alone constitute undue prejudice. The court also pointed out the obvious flaw in defendant's argument that it would have to do discovery all over again if plaintiff were allowed to amend the legal theory underpinning his claims: the discovery already conducted would have been useful in defending against the new claims as well, so there was no legitimate argument that the costs had been wasted.
The court's reasoning is a victory for plaintiffs with meritorious claims because it acknowledges that leave to amend should only be denied where the facts are not in dispute, no liability exists, and no amendment would change the result. Edwards v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App. 4th 172, 180 (2001).
Congratulations to the client and all of the attorneys who worked hard to get this result!
