Hughes v. S.A.W. Entertainment, LTD

Filing 132

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 122 Motion to Amend/Correct ; plaintiffs are required to E-FILE the amended document. As set forth in the attached order, the court grants the plaintiffs' motion to amend. The plaintiffs must e -file their Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on the docket. The defendants can raise their arguments against the TAC through future motions, including a motion to compel arbitration and/or a motion to stay or dismiss. As discussed at the November 15 hearing, the parties must meet and confer on a schedule for any motion briefing and for any further attempts at alternative dispute resolution. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

NICOLE HUGHES, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-03371-LB

Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.

13
14

S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT, LTD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

Re: ECF No. 122

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

On August 29, 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration with

19

respect to named plaintiffs Nicole Hughes, Angelynn Hermes, and Penny Nunez, and opt-in

20

plaintiff Dora Marchand. Hughes v. S.A.W. Entm’t, Ltd., No. 16-cv-03371-LB, 2018 WL 4109100

21

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2018).1 The court ordered Ms. Hughes, Ms. Hermes, Ms. Nunez, and Ms.

22

Marchand to submit all claims other than claims under the California Private Attorney General Act

23

(“PAGA”) to binding arbitration and stayed each plaintiff’s PAGA claims (if any) while that

24

plaintiff’s arbitration is pending. Id. at *5. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a motion to

25
26
27
Order – ECF No. 120. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
1

28

ORDER – No. 16-cv-03371-LB

1

amend their complaint to add a new named plaintiff who did not sign an arbitration agreement

2

with the plaintiffs. Id.

3

On September 19, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to (1) add a new

4

named plaintiff, Diana Tejada, and (2) add a new named defendant, SFBSC Management, LLC.

5

The defendants opposed the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. The court held a hearing on November

6

15, 2018, and now grants the plaintiffs’ motion to amend.

7
ANALYSIS

8
9

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), outside of a one-time “matter of course”
amendment, a party may amend its pleading “only with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.

12

This leave policy is applied with “extreme liberality.” See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

13

316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). A court considers five factors to determine whether to grant

14

leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of

15

amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff previously amended his complaint. See Nunes v.

16

Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004). Of the factors, prejudice to the opposing party is the

17

“touchstone of the inquiry under rule 15(a)” and “carries the greatest weight.” See Eminence

18

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Absent prejudice or a strong showing on other factors, a presumption

19

exists under Rule 15(a) favoring granting leave to amend. See id. The party opposing a motion to

20

amend bears the burden of showing prejudice. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,

21

187 (9th Cir. 1987).

22

Considering the court’s knowledge of the entire case and its invitation for the plaintiffs to

23

move to amend their complaint, the court finds good cause and grants the plaintiffs’ motion to file

24

the amended complaint. The court considered the defendant’s prejudice and futility arguments but

25

to the extent that they exist, they can be addressed through future motions, including a motion to

26
27
28
ORDER – No. 16-cv-03371-LB

2

1

compel arbitration of Ms. Tejada’s claims and/or a renewed motion to stay or dismiss this case

2

under the first-to-file rule.2

3
4

CONCLUSION

5

The court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. The plaintiffs may file the proposed Third

6

Amended Complaint attached to their motion. As discussed at the November 15 hearing, the

7

parties must meet and confer on a schedule for any motion briefing and for any further attempts at

8

alternative dispute resolution.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Dated: November 19, 2018
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

26
27
28

The defendants previously discussed Ms. Tejada in the context of their prior motion to compel
arbitration, but then also argued that Ms. Tejada was “a ‘mere passive observer’ to this lawsuit as an
FLSA plaintiff.” Defs. Mot. to Compel Arb. Reply – ECF No. 97 at 12. The court’s August 29 order
did not address Ms. Tejada, who at the time was not a named plaintiff. See Hughes, 2018 WL
4109100. The parties should not take from the August 29 order that the court has expressed any
opinion as to whether Ms. Tejada’s claims are subject to arbitration.
ORDER – No. 16-cv-03371-LB

3