Hill v. R + L Carriers Inc
ORDER re 196 GRANTING Plaintiff Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Named Plaintiff and Class Representative. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/2010. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010)
Hill v. R + L Carriers Inc
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 09-1907 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A NAMED PLAINTIFF AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE (Docket No. 196)
GLENN HILL, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
R+L CARRIERS, INC.; R+L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. /
On September 2, 2010, Plaintiff Glenn Hill filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendant R+L Carriers
Shared Services, LLC, opposed the motion in part, asserting that Plaintiff's proposed claim under the California Private Attorneys General (PAGA) Act was futile because it was barred by the statute of limitations. In his reply in support of his motion, filed
September 30, 2010, Plaintiff suggested that he wished to move to join Casey Baker as another named Plaintiff and class representative. Plaintiff argued that a PAGA claim brought by Mr. Because Defendant did not have an
Baker would not be time barred.
opportunity to respond this argument, on October 8, 2010, the Court granted it leave to file a surreply. surreply. Defendant argues that it would suffer undue prejudice from the addition of Mr. Baker because the Court's current deadlines preclude it from deposing him on issues specifically related to his adequacy as a class representative. However, Defendant Defendant has filed its
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
acknowledges that it had the opportunity to depose Mr. Baker "in his capacity as an opt-in plaintiff." Surreply 3. Defendant does
not explain why an additional deposition of Mr. Baker would be necessary if he were a class representative. Defendant also argues that adding Mr. Baker and a PAGA claim would be futile because doing so would "necessarily infuse the proceedings with individualized inquiries into whether the putative class members can maintain PAGA claims against R+L." Surreply 4.
But this general argument could be said of any plaintiff or PAGA claim in a class action. On its face, the addition of Mr. Baker
and a PAGA claim does not appear to make class certification improper. Defendant may renew its arguments in its opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add Casey Baker as a named Plaintiff. 196.) (Docket No.
On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a proposed amended The
complaint, which includes Mr. Baker as a named Plaintiff.
Court deems this document, lodged at Docket No. 225, the operative complaint in this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 25, 2010
CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge
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?