Singh, et al v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, et al.

Filing 46

ORDER Granting Leave to Amend, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/3/2016. (1. Plaintiffs' motion to amend (Doc. No. 35-1) is granted; and 2. This action will proceed on plaintiffs' first amended complaint (Doc. No. 35-2) as the operative pleading.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

JASBIR SINGH; BANY LOPEZ; JULIO
VIDRIO; JAMES SLIGER; DERRICK
LEWIS; JERRY LEININGER;
KRISTOPHER SPRING; and JERRY
WOOD,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

No. 1:15-cv-01497-DAD-BAM

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. No. 35)

v.
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICE, LLC; CENTRAL CAL
TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and DOES
1-100, inclusive,
Defendants.

20
21

On February 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed the original complaint for this putative class action in

22

the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, alleging seven causes of action,

23

including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, unlawful

24

business deductions, failure to pay wages upon termination of employment, failure to issue

25

statutory complaint wage statements, and violations of the California Business and Professions

26

Code § 17200 et seq. (Doc. No. 1-1.) On April 15, 2015, defendants Roadrunner Intermodal

27

Services, LLC, Central Cal Transportation, LLC, and Morgan Southern Inc. removed the action

28

to federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) In a joint case management statement, filed July 17, 2015,
1

1

defendants contended that “[p]laintiffs had no contractual or other relationship with Defendants,

2

Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC („RRIS‟), and Morgan Southern, Inc. („MSI‟).” (Doc. No.

3

14, at 3.)

4

On January 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed the present motion to amend (Doc. No. 35-1) along

5

with a proposed first amended complaint (Doc. No. 35-2). Plaintiffs seek to add three new

6

plaintiffs, who were all employed by Morgan Southern, Inc. (Doc. No. 35-1, at 3.) Defendants

7

have not filed an opposition to plaintiff‟s motion. Moreover, the court held a hearing on the

8

motion on May 3, 2016. Although plaintiffs‟ counsel Daniel Kopfman was present, defendants

9

failed to appear at that hearing and did not otherwise contact the court in any way to indicate their

10

position regarding plaintiffs‟ motion.1 For the reasons that follow, the court will grant plaintiff‟s

11

motion to amend.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be

12
13

freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Nevertheless, leave to amend

14

need not be granted where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad

15

faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See Amerisource Bergen Corp. v.

16

Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752,

17

757 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v.

18

Bank of Haw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

19

Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971).

20

Here, each of the original plaintiffs all worked out of the Central Cal Transportation LLC

21

office. The three proposed new plaintiffs all worked out of the office of Morgan Southern Inc.

22

1

23
24
25
26
27
28

It is conceivable that defendants‟ counsel has been confused by the reassignment of this action
and related court orders. On January 25, 2016, after defendants declined to consent to magistrate
judge jurisdiction, this action was assigned to U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller, sitting in
Sacramento. (Doc. No. 38.) Thereafter, the hearing on plaintiffs‟ motion to amend was first reset
for February 26, 2016 and then for March 25, 2016, before Judge Mueller. (Doc. Nos. 39, 41.)
However, on February 18, 2016, the case was reassigned to the undersigned in the Fresno
Division of the court. (Doc. No. 42.) Thereafter, the hearing on the motion was reset for May 3,
2016 before the undersigned. Doc. No. 44.) Nonetheless, Local Rule 230(c) requires a party to
file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to any properly noticed motion.
Counsel for defendants is forewarned that any future failure to comply with the Local Rules may
result in the imposition of sanctions.
2

1

(Doc. No. 35-1., at 3.) Plaintiffs contend that “[a]dding the three proposed new Plaintiffs to the

2

Complaint will facilitate the discovery process and [ ] address any potential arguments that the

3

original Plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives of persons employed by Morgan

4

Southern, Inc.” (Id.)

5

There is nothing before the court to suggest bad faith on part of plaintiffs or any undue

6

prejudice to defendants posed by the granting of leave to amend. Under these circumstances, the

7

court will grant plaintiffs‟ motion to amend their complaint and this matter will now proceed with

8

plaintiffs‟ first amended complaint as the operative pleading. See Estrella v. Freedom Financial

9

Network, LLC, No. CV 09-3156 SI, 2011 WL 4595017, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)

10

(permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add additional class representatives in order “to

11

ensure complete class representation.”).

12

ORDER

13

1. Plaintiffs‟ motion to amend (Doc. No. 35-1) is granted; and

14

2. This action will proceed on plaintiff‟s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 35-2) as the

15
16
17

operative pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 3, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3