Kali A Gordon v. Starbucks Coffee Company et al

Filing 31

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint 29 . Court Reporter: N/A. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-02660-CAS-(PJWx)

Title

KALI A. GORDON V. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 15, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

MONICA SALCIDO
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (dkt. 29, filed
9/20/13)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of October 28, 2013, is
hereby vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 21, 2013, plaintiff Kali Gordon filed this action in Santa Barbara
County Superior Court against defendants Starbucks Coffee Company (“Starbucks”),
Amanda Sturgis Melby, and Does 1 through 100. Plaintiff principally complains that she
was fired from her employment at Starbucks because she refused to return to work
shortly after giving birth. Compl. ¶¶ 10–16. On April 16, 2013, Starbucks removed the
case to this Court.
The Court’s scheduling order, issued August 12, 2013, provides that requests for
leave to amend pleadings should be made no later than September 20, 2013. Dkt 15. On
September 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a timely motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint. Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint adds three new claims under
California law, all based on the same facts alleged in plaintiff’s original complaint. The
proposed first amended complaint also removes all reference to previously-dismissed
defendant Amanda Sturgis Melby, as well as making minor factual and editorial changes.
On October 7, 2013, defendants filed an opposition, arguing that plaintiff failed to
comply with Local Rule 7-3, which requires that parties meet and confer prior to filing
motions with the Court.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-02660-CAS-(PJWx)

Date

October 15, 2013

Title

KALI A. GORDON V. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ET AL.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 provides that after a responsive pleading has been filed, “a party
may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a).
Where leave to amend is required, the decision whether to grant leave to amend “is
entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Jordan v. County of Los Angeles,
669 F.2d 1311, 1324 (9th Cir. 1982), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982).
“Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to
amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment,
and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley,
356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815, 818 (9th
Cir.2003)). “Some courts have stressed prejudice to the opposing party as the key
factor.” Texaco v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). However, “[u]ndue
delay is a valid reason for denying leave to amend.” Id. (quoting Contact Lumber Co. v.
P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d 1446, 1454 (9th Cir. 1990)); but see Bowles v.
Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Undue delay by itself, however, is
insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend”).
Further, “the liberality of Rule 15(a) does not mean that amendment will be
allowed regardless of the diligence of the moving party. Where the party seeking
amendment knows or should know of the facts upon which the proposed amendment is
based but fails to include them in the original complaint, the motion to amend may be
denied.” Jordan, 669 F.3d at 1324. And “[l]ate amendments to assert new theories are
not reviewed favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party
seeking amendment since the inception of the cause of action.” Kaplan, 49 F.3d at 1370
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Delay can contribute to a finding of
prejudice, for “expense, delay, and wear and tear on individuals and companies count
toward prejudice.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court concludes that, due to the “extreme liberality” with which leave to
amend is granted, plaintiff should have leave to file her proposed first amended
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-02660-CAS-(PJWx)

Date

October 15, 2013

Title

KALI A. GORDON V. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY ET AL.

complaint. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).
Starbucks’ only argument in opposition to plaintiff’s motion is that plaintiff failed to
meet and confer prior to filing her motion as required by Local Rule 7-3. While the
Court admonishes plaintiff to follow all local rules in the future, the Court does not
believe that her failure to do so requires denial of this motion.1

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended
complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of
Preparer

:

00

MS

1

Even if the Court denied plaintiff’s motion because of her failure to comply
with Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff would simply refile her motion. Plaintiff’s refiled motion
would still be meritorious, as the Court would find good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order’s September 20, 2013 deadline for requests for
leave to amend.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3