Woods et al v. Vector Marketing Corporation

Filing 172

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 166 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

WILLIAM WOODS, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-0264 EMC

VECTOR MARKETING CORPORATION,

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Defendant.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 166)
13
14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

16

Docket No. 166. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek leave to substitute a new class representative for their

17

Missouri Minimum Wage Act class after this Court granted summary judgment in favor of

18

Defendant Vector Marketing Corporation that the former Missouri class representative’s claims

19

were untimely filed. See Docket No. 164 at 11-12.

20

Vector opposes amendment on two grounds. First, Vector argues that amendment is futile

21

because the Plaintiffs’ proposed class representative is not actually a member of the Missouri

22

Minimum Wage Act class. See Docket Nos. 168-69. Specifically, Vector has submitted records

23

which it claims indicate that the proposed representative, Tiffany Carsten, received Vector’s training

24

online, and not in person. See Docket No. 169 (Matheson Decl.) at ¶¶ 3-5. Online trainees are

25

apparently excluded from the parties’ agreed-upon class definition. See Docket No. 170 (Kubin

26

Decl.), Ex. 3. Alternatively, Vector argues that Plaintiffs have not shown diligence or good cause to

27

seek leave to amend at this time. The Court disagrees with both assertions.

28

1

Vector’s first argument is clearly without merit. Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint

2

alleges that Ms. Carsten attended “some or all of the 3-5 day initial training session conducted by

3

Defendants in Missouri in or around September 2012.” Docket No. 166-1 (Proposed Amended

4

Complaint) at ¶ 17. Further, Ms. Carsten filed a declaration averring, under penalty of perjury, that

5

she attended in person training and thus is a class member. Docket No. 166-3 (Cartsen Decl.) at ¶¶

6

5-7. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel claim that they reached out to Ms. Carsten to represent the Missouri

7

class because Vector identified her as a potential class member--something Vector now claims

8

stemmed from an “administrative oversight” on its part. Matheson Decl. at ¶ 6. Put simply,

9

Plaintiffs believe, and more importantly allege as a fact entitled to the presumption of truth at this

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

stage of the litigation, that Carsten is a class member.
Vector claims in response that “Carsten’s sworn declaration is chock full of lies and

12

obfuscations regarding the very subject matter of this lawsuit.” Docket No. 168 at 7. The Court

13

rejects this contention. Notably, Vector’s evidence does not support the rather extreme rhetoric

14

employed in its brief. The relevant declaration submitted by Vector simply states that Carsten

15

attended training online, and that it would be “inconsistent” with Vector’s “expectations” for such a

16

trainee to have also attended training in person. Matheson Decl. at ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Put

17

simply, Vector’s declarant does not directly contradict Carsten’s assertion that she actually attended

18

Vector’s in person training in Missouri.1 Of course, discovery may show that Vector’s suspicions

19

are correct. If that turns out to be the case, the Court will address such arguments at an appropriate

20

time. It is premature, however, to conclude now that Plaintiffs cannot amend their complaint to add

21

Carsten as a class representative because Vector may be able to prove that Carsten is not a class

22

member. Vector has not shown that amendment would be futile in this case.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even if the declaration did contain a direct contradiction, the Court would still overrule
Vector’s objection. When determining whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court reviews
the proposed amended complaint under the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (i.e., in the light most favorable to the party seeking leave,
and accepting the truth of the allegations stated in the proposed amended complaint). See Berry v.
UCSF, No. 09-cv-0499-EMC, 2009 WL 5092027, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009) (citations
omitted).

2

1

Nor has Vector demonstrated that Plaintiffs unduly delayed in seeking amendment, or that

2

Plaintiffs cannot show good cause to seek leave to amend. Plaintiffs sought leave to substitute a

3

new named plaintiff shortly after this Court dismissed the former representative on statutes of

4

limitations grounds. More importantly, Vector cannot show (and does not even argue) prejudice.

5

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. The hearing on this

6

motion set for June 11, 2015 is hereby VACATED. Plaintiffs shall file the first amended complaint

7

within four (4) days of the date of this Order.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

This order disposes of Docket No. 147.

12

Dated: June 5, 2015

13

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

3