Robinson v. The Chefs' Warehouse

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 21 leave to amend and referring discovery dispute. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
SHAON ROBINSON,

10

Case No. 15-cv-05421-RS

Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
THE CHEFS’ WAREHOUSE, INC.,

13

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND AND REFERRING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Defendant.
14
15
Plaintiff Shaon Robinson seeks leave to file an amended complaint, adding an additional

16
17

plaintiff (Sean Clark), an additional defendant, (Chef’s Warehouse West Coast, LLC) and

18

additional claims for relief under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) and Family

19

Rights ACT (“FRA”). The proposed amended complaint also contains other “non-substantive”

20

changes to which defendant has not objected. Because the original proposed amended complaint

21

(labeled as “First Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. 21-1, Exh. A) was replete with drafting errors that

22

impeded analysis of whether the pleading was viable, plaintiff was directed to file a new proposed

23

complaint, and the parties were allowed supplemental briefing regarding the revised proposal.1

24

The motion for leave to amend is now again ripe, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) will be

25

decided without oral argument.

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff labeled the revised proposal a a “Second Amended Complaint,” even though no “First
Amended Complaint” has been allowed. See Dkt. No. 27.

Plaintiff’s counsel was expressly ordered to “proofread with care,” to avoid the types of

1
2

errors previously identified. Counsel failed to give that admonishment due attention. The revised

3

proposal still contains some of the form pleading options in the 14th claim for relief, pointed out

4

in the prior order as problematic. The proposal continues to use “defendant” and “defendants”

5

interchangeably. In places, the complaint refers to “plaintiff” in the singular, without first clearly

6

identifying which plaintiff is intended.
All that said, it can now be divined from the face of the proposed amended complaint,

7
8

particularly as confirmed by plaintiff’s briefing that (1) only the first through eighth and fifteenth

9

through sixteenth claims for relief are advanced by Robinson and Clark on behalf of themselves
and the putative class, (2) the ninth through fourteenth claims for relief are advanced by Robinson

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

individually,2 and (3) Clark advances no strictly individual claims. Additionally, it is clear that

12

Robinson and Clark do not intend to distinguish between The Chef’s Warehouse, Inc. and Chef’s

13

Warehouse West Coast, LLC, and that all references to “defendant” in the singular can be

14

understood as applying to either or both defendants, subject to proof as to which entity was the

15

employer.
While the failure to comply with the prior order’s instruction to proofread carefully cannot

16
17

be condoned, the remaining drafting mistakes are not a basis to deny leave to amend. In light of

18

the fact that Robinson admittedly is asserting no purely individual claims, defendants’ complaint

19

that no factual allegations are offered to support any such claims is moot. At this juncture,

20

defendants have not established a failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to the FRA claim.

21

Finally, while the statute of limitations may become relevant to the scope of any class that

22

otherwise may be certified, it does not render the proposed amendment futile. Accordingly, the

23
24
25
26

2

Stray references to members of the class in paragraphs 170 and 172 of the 14th claim for relief
do not alter this conclusion and will be disregarded. To the extent the language of the complaint
could be construed differently from the limitations Robinson and Clark have conceded in their
opposition briefing, they will be held to those concessions, and the limitations set out in this order.

27
28

CASE NO.

2

15-cv-05421-RS

1

motion for leave to amend is granted. The proposed pleading at Dkt. No. 27 is hereby deemed

2

filed as the operative complaint. It may hereafter be referred to by the title shown in its caption-

3

Second Amended Complaint—even though it technically it represents only the first amendment

4

allowed.

5

Plaintiff’s administrative motion (Dkt. No. 33) seeking leave to file a unilateral letter brief

6

regarding a discovery dispute, and all future discovery disputes are hereby referred to a randomly-

7

assigned magistrate judge for resolution.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: November 10, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

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

CASE NO.

3

15-cv-05421-RS