Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 85

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 79 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 HAKAN YUCESOY, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-15-0262 EMC UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 12 Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 79) 13 14 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION On June 12, 2015, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to 17 dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) in this action. See Yucesoy v. Uber Techs., Inc., -- F. 18 Supp. 3d ---, 2015 WL 3657656 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their 19 dismissed claims, and directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint no later than July 3, 2015. 20 See id. at *11. 21 Rather than file an amended complaint solely addressing the deficiencies noted in this 22 Court’s Order, Plaintiffs instead brought the instant motion for leave to file a second amended 23 complaint (SAC) on June 30, 2015.1 Docket No. 79. Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC would: (a) allegedly 24 25 26 27 28 1 Uber argues that because Plaintiffs did not actually file a second amended complaint within the deadline set by this Court, but instead attached a proposed second amended complaint to their motion for leave to file, this Court should prohibit Plaintiffs from filing any amended complaint for the remainder of this litigation. The Court agrees with Uber that the better practice would have been for Plaintiffs to file an operative complaint as ordered by this Court, and then seek leave to amend that complaint by way of a separate motion. However, the Court will not preclude Plaintiffs from filing an amended complaint on this basis, especially because Uber has suffered no prejudice; while Plaintiffs did not actually file an amended complaint by this Court’s deadline, it did submit a 1 fix the deficiencies this Court identified in its prior Order;2 (b) add a claim under California Labor 2 Code section 2802 on behalf of the putative class of Massachusetts-based Uber drivers; and (c) add 3 three additional named plaintiffs. See Docket No. 79-1 (Proposed SAC). 4 For the reasons explained below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion 5 for leave to amend: The Court will not permit Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that alleges a 6 violation of California Labor Code section 2802, because such amendment would be futile. 7 However, the Court will permit Plaintiffs to file the remainder of the proposed SAC. The hearing on 8 this matter currently set for August 6, 2015 is hereby VACATED. 9 A. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 II. DISCUSSION Legal Standards After a party has amended a pleading once as a matter of course, it may only amend further 12 after obtaining leave of the court, or by consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 13 Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. 14 However, “the grant or denial of a subsequent opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the 15 District Court.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In determining whether leave should be 16 granted pursuant to a district court’s discretion, the Supreme Court has stated that: 17 [i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 18 19 20 21 22 Id. In the Ninth Circuit, the above listed factors – often referred to as the Foman factors – are 23 not weighted equally. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 24 2003) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1987)). Rather, courts 25 26 27 proposed amended complaint within the 21 day period this Court set in its prior Order. 2 28 Uber does not argue that such amendments should not be permitted, because this Court has already granted leave to amend the complaint for this purpose. 2 1 have held that “the crucial factor is the resulting prejudice to the opposing party.” Howey v. United 2 States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). 3 In addition to the requisites of Rule 15, “[o]nce the district court [files] a pretrial scheduling 4 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which establishe[s] a timetable for amending 5 pleadings that rule’s standards control[.]” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 6 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified only 7 upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “A court’s evaluation of good cause is not 8 coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety of the amendment under . . . Rule 15.” Rather, “Rule 9 16(b)’ s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 B. 12 Plaintiffs’ Request to Add Claim Under California Labor Code Section 2802 The proposed SAC is a putative class action complaint brought “on behalf of all Uber drivers 13 . . . who have worked in Massachusetts.” See Proposed SAC at ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiffs in this action do 14 not allege that they drove for Uber in California, nor do they seek to represent any unnamed drivers 15 who did so. See Mot. at 4-5. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs ask this Court for leave to amend their 16 complaint to add a cause of action on behalf of the putative class brought under California Labor 17 Code section 2802, which requires, inter alia, that an employer “indemnify his or her employee for 18 all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge 19 of his or her duties.” Cal. Lab. Code § 2802(a). 20 As Plaintiffs concede, this Court has previously determined in related litigation that section 21 2802 of the California Labor Code does “not apply extraterritorially and, therefore, cannot apply to 22 those Plaintiffs or unnamed class members who worked in states other than California.” O’Connor 23 v. Uber Techs., Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 989, 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted); see also Cotter 24 v. Lyft, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1059, 1063-66 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Thus, Plaintiffs’ requested amendment 25 would be futile – if amendment were permitted, the Court would simply follow its earlier decision 26 and dismiss the section 2802 claims with prejudice on extraterritoriality grounds.3 See Miller v. 27 3 28 In their reply brief Plaintiffs ask this Court to reconsider its extraterritoriality determination, but the Court declines to do so. 3 1 Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that a proposed amendment is 2 futile and leave should be denied where the proposed claim is fatally defective as a matter of law). 3 Hence, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint to bring a cause of action 4 under section 2802.4 5 C. 6 Plaintiffs’ Request to Add Three Additional Named Plaintiffs Plaintiffs also seek to amend their complaint to add three additional named plaintiffs, 7 Mokhtar Talha, Brian Morris, and Pedro Sanchez. See Proposed SAC at ¶¶8-10. According to 8 Plaintiffs, they want to add Mr. Talha because he is not bound by any arbitration agreement with 9 Defendants, while Plaintiffs seek to add Messrs. Morris and Sanchez because they are currently still 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 driving for Uber, and “thus have clear standing to pursue prospective relief.” Mot. at 4. Uber argues that amendment to add these three proposed class representatives should not be 12 allowed because the proposed amendment is dilatory, futile, and prejudicial. The Court is not 13 convinced. Discovery has not yet begun in this case, and the Court has only ruled on one 14 substantive motion to date – Uber’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC. Thus, while this action has 15 been active since October 2014 – when it was first filed in Massachusetts – the Court finds that the 16 proposed amendment is not so delayed as to violate either Rules 15 or 16.5 17 Nor has Uber sufficiently demonstrated that adding these three individuals would be futile. 18 As to Messrs. Morris and Sanchez, Uber first argues that amendment would be futile because these 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Plaintiffs state that the sole purpose of the amendment sought is to “preserve the right of Massachusetts drivers to make use of California law” if this Court’s determination on extraterritoriality is “reconsidered or reversed on appeal.” Mot. at 5. If that is truly the sole purpose of Plaintiffs’ motion, they have likely already succeeded; this Court’s order denying leave to amend to add a section 2802 claim may be appealable once this Court enters a final judgment in this action. See Hall v. City of L.A., 697 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that a non-final order denying leave to amend is reviewable after the final judgment, into which that order merges). 5 While both parties agree that Rule 16 applies here, neither party identifies the order in which this Court apparently set a deadline for the filing of amended pleadings. Presumably, the parties are referring to the deadline set in this Court’s recent Order on Uber’s motion to dismiss, which required Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 3, 2015. As noted above, however, Plaintiffs more or less complied with this deadline by lodging (but not filing) their proposed SAC on June 30, 2015. Thus it is debatable whether Rule 16’s good cause standard even applies here. Assuming it does, however, the Court finds that the standard is met in this circumstance, as Plaintiffs have identified sufficient reasons for seeking to add the three proposed new representative plaintiffs at this stage of the litigation. 4 1 drivers are apparently bound to the 2014 version of Uber’s arbitration agreements. Even if true, and 2 even if the 2014 arbitration agreements were enforceable against both Morris and Sanchez, this 3 would likely not render the proposed amendment legally futile. See Miller, 845 F.2d at 214 4 (explaining that a proposed amendment is futile only if the Court would dismiss an allegation with 5 prejudice because “no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would 6 constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense”). More importantly though, this Court has already 7 ruled that the 2014 arbitration agreements are not enforceable under California law; a ruling that 8 would likely apply if (or, more accurately, when) Uber moves to compel individual arbitration of 9 Morris’s and Sanchez’s claims. See Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2015 WL 3749716 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Uber’s alternative futility argument is equally without merit. Uber argues that both Mr. 12 Morris and Mr. Talha are “subject to unique defenses” that would render them inadequate class 13 representatives. Docket No. 82 (Opposition) at 6-7. Specifically with respect to Mr. Morris, Uber 14 argues that it received “complaints that he allegedly drove while intoxicated and had a car that 15 smelled of marijuana,” id. at 6, while Talha was purportedly “deactivated from the Uber platform [in 16 2012] for allegedly sexually assaulting female clients. Thrice.” Id. at 7 (internal alterations and 17 quotation marks omitted). With respect to Mr. Morris, the Court notes that he vehemently denies 18 driving under the influence or using marijuana in his vehicle. And as Plaintiffs point out, if Uber 19 truly believed (or better yet, had actually confirmed) that Mr. Morris had driven Uber passengers 20 under the influence, he likely would not still be driving for Uber today. Docket No. 83 (Reply) at 7. 21 More importantly, however, it is not clear at this stage of the proceedings that either Morris or Talha 22 would be precluded from serving as class representatives even if Uber’s allegations were found to be 23 true – thus the Court cannot say that amendment would be futile. See Stanich v. Travelers Indemnity 24 Co., 259 F.R.D. 294, 315 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (recognizing that “the general rule . . . is that unrelated 25 unethical or even criminal conduct is not sufficient to support a finding of inadequacy”); see also 26 Newberg on Class Actions § 3.68 (5th ed. 2015) (noting that “[m]ost courts have rejected the 27 contention that a proposed representative is inadequate because of prior unrelated unsavory, 28 unethical, or even illegal conduct”). Moreover, even if the Court were convinced at this juncture 5 1 that neither Morris nor Talha could ever serve as class representatives, the Court would still be 2 required to permit them to allege claims individually on their own behalf, as plaintiffs seek to do. 3 See Proposed SAC at ¶ 11 (“Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all 4 others similarly situated . . . .”) (emphasis added). Adequacy of their status as class representatives 5 can be addressed in the context of the class certification motion. 6 Finally, Uber suggests that permitting Plaintiffs to add the three proposed individuals would 7 cause it prejudice. Uber must demonstrate that the prejudice it would suffer from amendment would 8 be reasonably severe. see Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (“Absent prejudice, or a strong 9 showing on any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”) (emphasis in original). Uber has not met this standard. Indeed, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 the only prejudice Uber identifies is that it would be required to bring a separate motion to compel 12 Morris’s and Sanchez’s claims to arbitration.6 This is not sufficient to show prejudice that would 13 override the presumption in favor of amendment. Moreover, Uber’s claimed prejudice is diminished 14 yet further because Uber has already litigated a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the precise 15 contracts it claims will apply to Morris and Sanchez. See generally Mohamed, 2015 WL 3749716. 16 Uber has further litigated a motion to stay this Court’s order refusing to compel arbitration pending 17 Uber’s appeal, where Uber raised additional arguments regarding the enforceability of the 2014 18 Agreements that this Court has adjudicated. See Mohamed v. Uber Techs., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2015 19 WL 4483990 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (granting in part and denying in part Uber’s motion to stay). Put 20 simply, Uber and this Court have already spent considerable time considering the enforceability of 21 the 2014 arbitration provisions; requiring Uber to bring another motion to compel pursuant to these 22 same contracts is unlikely to require the expenditure of considerable effort or resources from any 23 party to this litigation. Hence, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to add the three 24 proposed new plaintiffs is GRANTED. 25 26 27 28 6 A motion to compel the current named Plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration pursuant to the 2013 Agreement is currently pending before the Court, and is set for hearing on August 6, 2015. See Docket No. 62. 6 1 2 III. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed SAC is granted in part and denied in part. 3 Plaintiffs may not file a complaint alleging violations of California Labor Code section 2802 on 4 behalf of drivers who worked for Uber outside California. Plaintiffs may, however, add the three 5 proposed new class representatives. Plaintiffs shall file their SAC consistent with this Order within 6 five (5) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs may not further add claims or parties without leave 7 of Court. 8 This order disposes of Docket No. 79. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: July 28, 2015 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7

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?