Lehmont Maheia v. Swissport USA Inc et al

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: granting 29 Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File FirstAmended Complaint. Within 7 days, Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint in accordance with General Order 10-07. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

WESTERN DIVISION

10

17
18

I.

Case No. CV 11-07823-ODW (FMOx)

LEHMONT MAHEIA, individually and )
on behalf of all others similarly situated, )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
SWISSPORT USA, INC., and Doe One )
)
through and including Doe One
)
Hundred,
)
)
Defendants.
________________________________ )

11
12
13
14
15
16

Order GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint [29]

Introduction

19

Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file his First Amended Complaint is before the

20

Court. The Amended Complaint adds several items and clarifies the original complaint.

21

First, it adds class action allegations that Defendants failed to pay class action members

22

minimum wages and overtime for time spent traveling to and from employee parking lots

23

and airport security. Second, it adds a fifth cause of action for off-the-clock claims under

24

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, on behalf of Plaintiff individually and as a collective

25

action under the opt-in provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 216. Third, it narrows the putative

26

subclasses to ramp agents at Los Angeles International Airport. Fourth, it adds a second

27

meal period subclass. Fifth, it clarifies Plaintiff’s late final pay claim.

28

///
1

1

II.

Factual Background

2

Under the Court’s scheduling order, Plaintiff may amend his pleadings on or before

3

January 23, 2012. Dkt. No. 11. Because December 26, 2011 (28 days prior to the

4

deadline) was a legal holiday, the last day for Plaintiff to file his Motion was the previous

5

Friday, December 23, 2011. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6; L.R. 6-1. Yet, Plaintiff overlooked

6

this and filed the Motion on Monday, December 26, 2011.

7

Parties met pursuant to L.R. 7-3 on December 16, 2011, discussing certain

8

amendments to the complaint. Counsel conferred at least one additional time prior to the

9

filing of the Motion. Unable to reach a stipulated agreement, Plaintiff filed this Motion

10

requesting leave to amend.

11

III.

Discussion

12

A.

Legal standard for motion for leave to amend

13

When the right to amend as a matter of course has been extinguished, a party may

14

amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s consent or with the court’s leave. Fed.

15

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But, Rule 15(a) is “very liberal”—courts should “freely give leave

16

when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d

17

946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

18

Still, courts need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices

19

the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation;

20

or, (4) is futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Of these factors, prejudice

21

to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

22

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Without a showing of prejudice, or strong evidence

23

of any of the other factors, there is a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting

24

leave to amend. Id.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

B.

Defendants fail to articulate any prejudice to them as a result of the
amended complaint

3

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s amendments to clarify its late final pay claim

4

and to narrow the putative subclasses to ramp agents at Los Angeles International

5

Airport. Defs.’ Opp’n at 1. Indeed, these amendments assist the litigants and the Court,

6

and are welcomed. For the other amendments, the Court is not convinced Defendants

7

will be prejudiced, or that Defendants even argued that it would be prejudiced.

8

At best, Defendants assert Plaintiff’s FLSA claim would transform the case into

9

a “hybrid collective action”, causing confusion. Id. at 10. It would seem, if there would

10

be any confusion, that this confusion would be directed to and would not prejudice

11

Defendants. For instance, this Court may someday regret that it allowed the case to

12

proceed as both a FLSA collective action and a state law class action. Likewise, potential

13

participants to the litigation might be troubled with the hybrid opt-in/opt-out procedure.

14

But, there is no evidence that Defendants would be prejudiced.

15

Courts have found, when based on related underlying facts, a FLSA claim can

16

proceed simultaneously with state law class action claims. See Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs.,

17

632 F.3d 971, 977-78 (7th Cir. 2011). Further, it is not unduly demanding for potential

18

participants to “make two binary choices”—to opt-in the FLSA claims and opt-out of the

19

state law claims. Id. at 978.

20

Defendants also appear to argue that including the FLSA will bring forth extra

21

litigants and laws into the case. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. While the

22

causes of action may differ somewhat, the underlying facts supporting both the FLSA and

23

state law claims are closely related, if not identical. It is not a high burden to work the

24

same set of facts into two separate legal paradigms. Accordingly, the Court finds no

25

prejudice to the Defendants by granting leave to amend.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

C.

The other factors are mere technicalities

2

Defendants’ briefing strategy shows the paucity of its merits in this opposition.

3

Their opening argument opposing Plaintiff’s Motion is that it was untimely filed on a

4

legal holiday (Dec. 26) instead of on the preceding Friday. While the Court does not

5

condone such negligence, it is “too late in the day” to allow one such misstep to be

6

decisive to the outcome. Foman, 371 U.S. at 181. The purpose of pleading is “to

7

facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Id. To prevent Plaintiff from amending his

8

complaint because of one legal holiday would not comport with the spirit of Rule 15(a).

9

Similarly, Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff unduly delayed bringing additional

10

causes of actions are unfounded. This case is still in its early stages, and this Court

11

employs an amended pleadings cutoff date particularly for situations like the one at hand.

12

In addition, the Court finds that the parties adequately complied with L.R. 7-3 prior to

13

filing this Motion. It appears that the substance of the Motion was discussed, but perhaps

14

not the form.

15

Finally, Defendants’ arguments that certain amended claims lack factual basis or

16

are insufficient to state a cause of action have been considered, but are found wanting.

17

At this time, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims to be plausible and not completely futile.

18

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(“A claim has facial plausibility when

19

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

20

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

21

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended

22

Complaint. Within seven (7) days, Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint in

23

accordance with General Order 10-07.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

January 18, 2012

27
28

__________ _______________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4