Santiago et al v. Amdocs, Inc.

Filing 211

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ANSWER 164 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/16/2012)

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

PATRICK SANTIAGO, ROBERT SCHUSSEL,
etc., et al.,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE
ANSWER

Plaintiffs,
v.

10

AMDOCS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,

11

Defendants.

No. C 10-04317 SI

/

12
13

Defendant has moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), for leave to amend its

14

answer to plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. Defendant seeks to add, as its thirty-fourth affirmative

15

defense, the doctrine of release. Plaintiffs oppose the motion arguing bad faith, undue delay, prejudice,

16

previous amendment, and futility of amendment. The Court does not find that defendant has engaged

17

in bad faith or undue delay, that amendment would significantly prejudice the named or unnamed

18

plaintiffs, or that defendant has previously amended its answer.

19

Plaintiffs have raised substantial questions concerning whether such an amendment would be

20

futile, either as to the FLSA claims or as to California state law claims. However, the Court is unable

21

to find, at this point, that the amendment would be futile as to all asserted claims. Resolution of those

22

questions must await further factual and legal amplification of the record.

23
24

For these reasons, the Court to GRANTS defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The amended answer must be filed by March 21, 2012.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
Dated: March 16, 2012
28

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge