Cordell v. Picc Lines Plus LLC et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson on 09/08/16. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

WILLIAM CORDELL,
Plaintiff,

5
6

v.

7
8
9

Case No. 16-cv-01814-TEH

PICC LINES PLUS LLC, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Now before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff William Cordell (“Plaintiff”) for

12

leave to file a second amended complaint. Docket No. 20. This matter came before the

13

Court on August 29, 2016 for a hearing. The Court heard argument on this motion, as well

14

as on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. For

15

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.

16
17
18

BACKGROUND
As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, the

19

Court addresses each with brevity. Plaintiff alleges that he was employed as a nurse at Picc

20

Lines Plus, LLC, from October 2014 to May 23 or 24, 2015. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶

21

7, 19. He claims he was terminated in retaliation for reporting misconduct within the

22

company. Id. ¶¶ 15, 16, 19, 30-34. On April 8, 20156, Plaintiff filed the instant action,

23

alleging Defendants Picc Lines Plus and Scottie Steinberg violated his rights by

24

terminating him in violation of public policy, violating California’s whistleblower

25

protection statute, defaming him, failing to pay him wages earned, failing to pay him

26

wages owed within 30 days from last day of employment, failing to make meal and rest

27

breaks available, failing to provide pay statements, and failing to maintain payroll records.

28

Compl. ¶¶ 25-41. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding two

1

claims: one for recovery of civil penalties under the Private Attorney Generals Act

2

(PAGA), and one for failure to permit inspection of personnel records. FAC ¶¶ 47-54.

3

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel gave written notice to the Labor and

4

Workplace Development Agency (LWDA) and Defendants of allegedly violated

5

provisions of the Labor Code concerning non-productive time and rest period wages. Mot.

6

at 3; Royer Decl. ¶ 10. The LWDA did not provide notice within 33 calendar days that it

7

intended to investigate the alleged violations. Royer Decl. ¶ 12. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff

8

filed a motion for administrative relief in which he gave notice that he intended to file a

9

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Id. ¶ 19.

10

On July 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present motion along with a Proposed Second

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Amended Complaint (“PSAC”). He seeks leave to add a PAGA claim based on

12

Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and other Picc Nurses for non-productive time and rest

13

periods. Mot. at 5; PSAC ¶ 53. Defendants filed their Opposition to the motion on August

14

2, 2016, and Plaintiff filed his Reply on August 12, 2016.

15
16

LEGAL STANDARD

17

After a party has amended a pleading once as a matter of course, it may only amend

18

further after obtaining leave of the court, or by consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

15(a). Rule 15 advises the court that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v.

21

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001).

22

“Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of

23

‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to

24

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing

25

party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma

26

Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013)

27

(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Of these so-called Foman factors,

28

prejudice is the weightiest and most important. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
2

1

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the

2

remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting

3

leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original).
“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD

4
5

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Evaluation of the Foman

6

factors “should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs

7

v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).

8
9
10

DISCUSSION
Defendants urge the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that amendment

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

is futile. Opp’n at 2. The Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated futility of

12

amendment, prejudice or otherwise overcome the presumption in favor of granting leave to

13

amend.

14

“[A] proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the

15

amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.”

16

Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, Plaintiff’s proposed

17

amendment would add a new PAGA claim for Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and

18

other Picc Nurses for non-productive time and rest periods. PSAC ¶ 53. Plaintiff has

19

alleged facts that would constitute a sufficient claim: Plaintiff was an at-will employee (Id.

20

¶ 13), Plaintiff was paid piece-rate wages (Id. ¶ 21), Plaintiff was never compensated for

21

time on the job in between insertions and for rest periods (Id. ¶ 22), other Picc Nurses were

22

not paid for non-productive time or rest periods (Id. ¶ 23). Case law supports Plaintiff’s

23

argument that employees paid under a piece-rate system are entitled to separate

24

compensation for non-productive work and for rest periods. See Gonzalez v. Downtown LA

25

Motors, LP, 215 Cal. App. 4th 36, 40-41 (2013) (finding that automotive technicians paid

26

on a piece-rate basis were “entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent waiting

27

for repair work or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer during their

28

work shifts…”); Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 864, 872 (2013)
3

1

(explaining that rest periods must be separately compensated in a piece-rate system, as

2

required by Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 314, 323 (2005)).

3

Defendants argue that amendment is futile because “Plaintiff has failed to allege

4

facts sufficient to constitute any claim for relief.” Opp’n at 2. The Court disagrees. In

5

ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court held that Plaintiff has sufficiently

6

pleaded most of the claims in the complaint. Adding one more claim under PAGA would

7

not require Plaintiff to “completely change or falsify” any allegations, as Defendants

8

assert. See id. The fact that the PSAC only adds one new factual allegation in paragraph

9

twenty three (23) refutes Defendants’ argument that amendment would “require Plaintiff to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

make things up.” PSAC ¶ 23; Opp’n at 2.
Further, the rest of the Foman factors also weigh in favor of granting leave to

12

amend. First, Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith or unduly delayed the proceedings. The

13

FAC was filed only 34 days after the original complaint. Second, amendment would not

14

prejudice Defendants because amendment is occurring early in the proceedings and

15

because Defendants had notice of Plaintiff’s intention to add a new PAGA claim. Mot. at

16

5; Royer Decl. ¶¶ 10-12. Third, contrary to what Defendants imply, there has been no

17

“repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” Opp’n at 2;

18

Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Employees, 708 F.3d at 1117. Plaintiff has only amended

19

once as a matter of course.

20

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for

21

leave to file a second amended complaint. The amended complaint shall be filed no later

22

than September 29, 2016.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 09/08/16

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

28

4