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
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?