Santiago et al v. Amdocs, Inc.

Filing 211


Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?