Dunn v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America, A New York Entity et al
Filing
102
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 91 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
KATHLEEN DUNN, et al.,
9
Plaintiffs,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
No. C-13-5456 EMC
v.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
TEACHERS INSURANCE & ANNUITY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al.,
12
13
Defendants.
___________________________________/
(Docket No. 91)
14
15
16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.
17
Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint to add plaintiffs Fred Hickson and Karen Hobson, to expand
18
a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action from a California class to a nationwide class and to add
19
a Rule 23 New York class. For the reasons stated on the record, as supplemented by this order, the
20
motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
21
22
23
I.
A.
DISCUSSION
Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), after twenty days from the date when the initial
24
complaint was served, “a party may amend [its] pleading only by leave of court or by written
25
consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” See Fed. R.
26
Civ. P. 15(a). Rule 15 has a policy of favoring amendments and should be applied with extreme
27
liberality. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing United States
28
v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.1981)). In general, “[f]ive factors are taken into account to
1
assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the
2
opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the
3
complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
4
178, 182 (1962). Other factors that could support a denial of leave to amend are “the impact on
5
judicial economy, judicial resources and the Court’s ability to manage cases and control its dockets.”
6
Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2002). These factors
7
do not carry equal weight; prejudice is the crucial factor. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
8
316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)
9
B.
Prejudice is generally found where the amendment would cause substantial delay in the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Proposed Plaintiffs and Expansion of FLSA Collective Action
proceedings. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir.
12
1999). “Typically undue prejudice occurs when the sequence and timing of important litigation
13
events . . . are disrupted.” Newton v. Am. Debt Servs., Inc., No. 11-cv-3228, 2013 WL 5592620, at
14
*15 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013). The Court finds that although additional discovery will have to be
15
taken due to the expansion of the FLSA claim to cover a nationwide class, this can be accomplished
16
without disrupting the Rule 16 schedule for class certification. Defendants have ample time to
17
oppose the motion and move for decertification.
18
C.
19
Rule 23 New York Class
The Ninth Circuit has noted that “late amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed
20
favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since the
21
inception of the cause of action.” Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d
22
1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, prejudice has been found where late amendments that should
23
have been known to the Plaintiff require an expansion of discovery and delay. See
24
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that
25
although eight months remained in discovery, advanced theories that were known to the Plaintiffs
26
would impose high additional costs and cause undue delay). Plaintiffs have known about proposed
27
plaintiffs Hickson and Hobson and the potential of bringing a Rule 23 New York Class since at least
28
May 2013. See Docket No. 91, Exs. C, D. Plaintiffs delay in bringing this claim over a year later
2
1
would now substantially prejudice Defendants and this Court by significantly expanding the scope
2
of discovery, prolonging the pleadings stage and thereby delaying class certification proceedings to
3
a considerable extent. Furthermore, the Court finds that it is not an ideal forum to bring a Rule 23
4
New York class action alleging violations of New York state law; most of the evidence and
5
witnesses are located in New York.
6
7
II.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to the addition of Plaintiffs Hickson
and Hobson and the expansion of the FLSA collective action to a nationwide class and DENIES
9
Plaintiffs’ motion to add a Rule 23 New York Class.
10
This order disposes of Docket No. 91.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
8
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: October 24, 2014
15
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?