Tenorio et al v. Gallardo et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting Leave to Amend, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/19/2016. (1. Plaintiffs' 27 motion to amend and 28 amended motion to amend are granted; 2. Plaintiffs are granted leave to forthwith file and serve their second amen ded complaint, which adds Pawan S. Kooner, d/b/a Pawan Kooner Farms, and Hardeep Kauer as defendants; 3. The hearing set for 12/20/2016 at 11:00 a.m. on defendants' motion to amend is vacated; and 4. Upon appearance by the newly served defendants in this action, the assigned Magistrate Judge may consider whether the 19 Scheduling Order of 6/23/2016 should be modified further.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LUCARIA TENORIO, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated
and in the interest of the general public,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 1:16-cv-00283-DAD-JLT

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. Nos. 27 and 28)

GABRIEL GALLARDO SR., an
individual; MANUEL GALLARDO, an
individual; SILVIA ESTHER
GALLARDO, an individual; KERN
COUNTY CULTIVATION, INC., a
California corporation; and NAZAR
KOONER, an individual,
Defendants.

20
21

On February 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action alleging: (1) violation of

22

the Agricultural Workers Protection Act; (2) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the

23

Fair Labor Standards Act; (3) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the California Labor

24

Code; (4) failure to provide timely and complete meal and rest periods or pay additional wages in

25

lieu thereof; (5) failure to indemnify for necessary business expenditures; (6) knowing and

26

intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (7) failure to

27

pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; (8) payment of bad checks; (9) violation of Farm

28

Labor Contractor’s Act; (10) violation of Unfair Competition Law; and (11) penalties pursuant to
1

1
2

the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. (Doc. No. 1.)
The deadline for the amendment of pleading in this action, established in the court’s

3

Pretrial Scheduling Order as modified, was November 18, 2016. (Doc. No. 26.) On November

4

18 and 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend and an amended motion to amend the

5

complaint, seeking leave of court to file a second amended complaint adding Pawan S. Kooner,

6

d/b/a Pawan Kooner Farms, and Hardeep Kauer as named defendants, based upon allegedly

7

recently obtained evidence. (Doc. Nos. 27 and 28.) Defendants have not opposed plaintiffs’

8

motion to amend. On December 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the pending

9

motion, noting defendants’ failure to file an opposition. (Doc. No. 30.) For the reasons set forth

10
11
12

below, plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend.
LEAVE TO AMEND
“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after

13

serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after

14

service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f),

15

whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to

16

amend a pleading or receive the opposing party’s written consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

prejudice to defendants posed by the granting of leave to amend in this instance. Plaintiffs seek

27

to add Pawan S. Kooner, d/b/a Pawan Kooner Farms, and Hardeep Kauer as defendants based

28

upon evidence that was allegedly recently obtained. (See Doc. No. 27-1 at 5.) Defendants have
2

1

not opposed the motion and plaintiffs timely filed their motion to amend on the last day for doing

2

so under the modified scheduling order. (See Doc. No. 24.) Under these circumstances, the court

3

will grant plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and this matter will now proceed on

4

plaintiff’s second amended complaint as the operative pleading.

5

ORDER

6

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and amended motion to amend (Doc. Nos. 27 and 28) are

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

granted;
2. Plaintiffs are granted leave to forthwith file and serve their second amended complaint,
which adds Pawan S. Kooner, d/b/a Pawan Kooner Farms, and Hardeep Kauer as
defendants;
3. The hearing set for December 20, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. on defendants’ motion to amend is
vacated; and
4. Upon appearance by the newly served defendants in this action, the assigned Magistrate

14

Judge may consider whether the Scheduling Order of June 23, 2016 (Doc. No. 19) should

15

be modified further.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 19, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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