Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.

Filing 97

ORDER GRANTING 95 96 LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/1/2018. 1. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation (Doc. No. 95), plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint; and 2. Plaintiff shall file the first amended complaint within five days of the date of service for this order; and 3. Within twenty-one (21) days after filing of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, defendants shall file a response thereto. (Thorp, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY COX,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:17-CV-01207-DAD-BAM, 1:17-cv01056-DAD-BAM (consolidated)
Plaintiff,

v.
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, CENTRAL CAL
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 50,

ORDER GRANTING LEAVING TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. Nos. 95, 96)

Defendants.

18
19
20
21

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,

22

Counter-Plaintiff and
Defendant,

23
24
25
26

v.
JEFFREY COX,
Counter-Defendant and
Plaintiff.

27
28
1

1
2
3

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
Plaintiff,

4
5
6
7

v.
T.G.S. TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

8
9
10

On February 7, 2018, the court issued an order consolidating Roadrunner Intermodal

11

Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc., 17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM and Jeffrey Cox v.

12

Roadrunner Intermodal Services, et al., 17-cv-01207-DAD-BAM. (Doc. No. 90.)

13

On February 26, 2018, plaintiff Jeffrey Cox (“plaintiff”) and defendants Roadrunner

14

Intermodal Services, LLC, and Central Cal Transportation, LLC (“defendants”) (collectively,

15

“the parties”) filed a stipulation to allow plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint

16

(“FAC”). (Doc. No. 95.) Plaintiff’s proposed FAC (see Doc. No. 95 at 5) appears to amend the

17

original complaint (see Jeffrey Cox v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, et al., 1:17-cv-01207-

18

DAD-BAM, Doc. No. 1-1 at 4) by adding another claim for whistleblower protection under

19

California Labor Code § 1102.5. The parties have agreed that if plaintiff is permitted to add this

20

claim to his complaint in this action, plaintiff will dismiss the same claim brought in Jeffrey Cox,

21

et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, et al., Case No. BC669711, a case currently

22

pending before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 95 at 3.) If permitted to do

23

so, all of plaintiff’s employment-related claims against defendants would then be consolidated in

24

a single action before this court. (Id.)

25

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that district courts “should freely give

26

leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Nevertheless, leave to amend need not

27

be granted where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith;

28
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Here, nothing before the court suggests bad faith or undue delay on the part of the

7

plaintiff. Because the parties have stipulated to the proposed amendment, the court concludes

8

there is no prejudice to defendants. Accordingly, the court finds good cause to grant plaintiff

9

leave to amend the complaint.

10

For the reasons set forth above,

11

1. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (Doc. No. 95), plaintiff is granted leave to amend

12
13

the complaint; and
2. Plaintiff shall file the first amended complaint within five days of the date of service

14
15

for this order; and
3. Within twenty-one (21) days after filing of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,

16
17
18

defendants shall file a response thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 1, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3