Velasquez et al v. HSBC Finance Corporation et al

Filing 87

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 65 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Answer (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL VELASQUEZ, FAVIOLA ALVAREZ, MARCELO ALTAMIRANO, JACKEY WILSON II, CARLOS MARTINEZ AND DIONICIO MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; HOUSEHOLD) FINANCE CORPORATION; BENEFICIAL ) COMPANY, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) I. INTRODUCTION

Case No. 08-4592 SC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Answer ("Motion") filed by Defendants HSBC Finance Corporation, Household Finance Corporation, and Beneficial Company, LLC ("Defendants"). Docket No. 65. Defendants submitted Musolino Decl. Ex. A Plaintiffs Docket

a copy of the Proposed Supplemental Answer.

("First Supplemental Answer to First Am. Compl.").1

filed an Opposition, and Defendants submitted a Reply. Nos. 73, 77.

For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants'

Motion is GRANTED.

Regina A. Musolino, a partner with the law firm Seyfarth Shaw, attorneys for Defendants, filed a Declaration in Support of the Motion. Docket No. 67.

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

II.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on October 2, 2008,

and an Amended Complaint on November 18, 2008. ("Compl."), 22 ("Am. Compl.").

See Docket Nos. 1

The Amended Complaint contains ten

counts, including (1) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; (2) failure to pay the federal minimum wage in violation of the FLSA; (3) failure to pay the California minimum wage in violation of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11000; and (4) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040, and Cal. Labor Code § 510(a). 82. On January 16, 2009, the Court denied Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement. Docket No. 35 ("Order"). Defendants Id. ¶¶ 58-

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint on February 2, 2009. Docket No. 37 ("Answer"). Supplemental Answer. Defendants now move for leave to file a

III. LEGAL STANDARD "On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).

Motions for leave to file supplemental pleadings should be granted unless undue prejudice to the opposing party will result. LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 1986). Defendants may raise new defenses by way of a 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

supplemental answer. (2000).

Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 409 n.4

IV. DISCUSSION Defendants move to file a supplemental answer that adds the affirmative defenses of set-off and release related to severance agreements purportedly executed by putative class members after Defendants filed their Answer. Mot. at 4; Musolino Decl. ¶ 5.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the proposed Supplemental Answer. No discovery cutoff or trial date

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

has been set in this case, and Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Conditional Collective Certification will not be heard until February 5, 2010. Defendants' Supplemental Initial Disclosures,

which were mailed to Plaintiffs' counsel on July 30, 2009, states that Defendants may rely on a "Severance and Release Agreement" to support its defenses to Plaintiffs' claims. Tabacopoulos Decl.

Ex. 1 ("Defs.' Supplemental Initial Disclosures").2 Plaintiffs contend that granting Defendants leave to file a Supplemental Answer would be futile. Opp'n at 3. Plaintiffs Id. at 4-5.

contend that claims under the FLSA cannot be waived.

Without reaching the merits of Plaintiffs' contention, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' causes of action go well beyond the FLSA, and include alleged violations of California labor laws. Compl. ¶¶ 58-106. See Am.

Plaintiffs make no effort to argue that the

Diana Tabacopoulos, a partner with the law firm Seyfarth Shaw, attorneys for Defendants, filed a Declaration in Support of Defendants' Reply. Docket No. 77-1. 3

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

affirmative defenses of set-off and release would be futile with respect to these other causes of action. Plaintiffs have failed

to show that permitting Defendants to file their proposed Supplemental Answer would be futile or unduly prejudicial.

V.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion for Leave to

File a Supplemental Answer is GRANTED.

Defendants must file their

Supplemental Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint no later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of this Order. The parties

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

shall appear for a Case Management Conference on April 16, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1, on the 17th floor, U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4