Hill v. R + L Carriers Inc

Filing 298

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 288 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

No. C 09-1907 CW
GLENN HILL and CASEY BAKER,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(Docket No. 288)

Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
13

R+L CARRIERS, INC.; R+L CARRIERS
SHARED SERVICES, LLC,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

Plaintiffs Glenn Hill and Casey Baker move for leave to file a

17

third amended complaint that names Miguel Saucedo as an additional

18

Plaintiff.

19

the motion.

20

considered the papers submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS

21

Plaintiffs’ motion.

22
23

Defendant R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC,1 opposes
The motion will be decided on the papers.

Having

BACKGROUND
Because the Court’s previous orders amply summarize this case,

24

only the background necessary to resolve this motion is provided

25

below.

26
1

27
28

On November 9, 2009, all claims against R+L Carriers, Inc.,
were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Docket No. 46.)
Defendants R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, is the only Defendant
remaining in this action.

1

Plaintiff Hill worked in San Leandro, California as a City

2

Dispatcher for Defendant, which provides operations and

3

administrative employees to related entities which transport

4

freight.

5

in Redding, California.

6

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California’s wage-and-hour laws

7

by, among other things, failing to compensate them for overtime.

8

On January 22, 2010, the Court conditionally certified this

9

Plaintiff Baker was a Dispatcher/Supervisor for Defendant
They allege that Defendant violated the

lawsuit as a collective action under the FLSA.

Thereafter, notice

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

was sent to a class defined as “everyone who worked at R+L Carriers

11

as a City Dispatcher, First Shift Supervisor/Dispatcher, Inbound

12

Supervisor/Dispatcher, Outbound Supervisor/Dispatcher, or in any

13

other Dispatcher positions for any period of time since January 22,

14

2007, and who were not paid overtime.”

15

A at 3.

16

to join” forms by individuals seeking to opt in as Plaintiffs.

17

Among these individuals was Miguel Saucedo, a City Dispatcher who

18

worked for Defendant in Montebello, California.

Order of Jan. 22, 2010, Ex.

On June 17, 2010, Plaintiff Hill filed fifty-two “consent

19

On March 3, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to de-

20

certify the FLSA collective action and dismissed without prejudice

21

the claims of the opt-in Plaintiffs.

22

that the opt-in Plaintiffs were situated similarly to him.2

23

Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, concluding

24

that they failed to show that common questions of law or fact

25

predominated over individualized inquiries, as required by Federal

Plaintiff Hill failed to show
The

26
27
28

2

In their opposition to Defendant’s de-certification motion,
Plaintiffs clarified that the FLSA collective action involved only
City Dispatchers.
2

1
2

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
On March 17, 2011, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Saucedo that

3

his claims had been dismissed without prejudice.

4

that he wished to remain a Plaintiff in this case.

5

Saucedo indicated

DISCUSSION

6

Defendant does not argue that Plaintiffs do not satisfy the

7

liberal standards governing amendment of pleadings under Federal

8

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

9

Plaintiffs do not establish that joinder of Saucedo as a Plaintiff

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Instead, Defendant contends that

is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a).

11

Rule 20(a) “permits the joinder of plaintiffs in one action

12

if: (1) the plaintiffs assert any right to relief arising out of

13

the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

14

occurrences; and (2) there are common questions of law or fact.”

15

Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing

16

Anderson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 1008, 1011 (7th

17

Cir. 1988)).

18

promote trial convenience and to expedite the final determination

19

of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.”

20

Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th

21

Cir. 1977) (citing Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th

22

Cir. 1974)).

23

the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to

24

the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly

25

encouraged.’”

26

of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)).

27

requirements of Rule 20(a) are met, “a district court must examine

28

whether permissive joinder would ‘comport with the principles of

This rule “is to be construed liberally in order to

League to Save

“‘Under the rules, the impulse is toward entertaining

League, 558 F.2d at 917 (quoting United Mine Workers

3

Once the two

1

fundamental fairness’ or would result in prejudice to either side.”

2

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000)

3

(quoting Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371,

4

1375 (9th Cir. 1980)).

5

Saucedo’s claims, like those of the current Plaintiffs, arise

6

from Defendant’s alleged violations of the FLSA and California’s

7

wage-and-hour laws, including the failure to compensate him for

8

overtime.

9

City Dispatcher in one of its California terminals.

Defendant employed Saucedo, like Plaintiff Hill, as a
Defendant does

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

not argue that, as City Dispatchers, Saucedo and Hill did not have

11

similar tasks.

12

from those of Hill, “[a]bsolute identity of all events is

13

unnecessary” for the purposes of joinder under Rule 20(a).

14

497 F.2d at 1333.

15

claims for relief by . . . different parties to be tried in a

16

single proceeding.”

17

FLSA collection action does not preclude joinder.

18

to add only one additional individual to the action.

19

denial of Plaintiffs’ class certification motion require preventing

20

Saucedo from joining this suit; Rule 20(a) does not mandate the

21

predominance of common questions of fact or law over individual

22

inquiries.

23

violations as Hill’s and Baker’s claims.

24

Rule 20(a) is met.

25

Although Saucedo’s circumstances may have differed

Mosley,

Rule 20(a) permits “all reasonably related

Id.

The Court’s decision to de-certify the
Plaintiffs seek
Nor does the

Saucedo’s claims arise from the same series of alleged
Thus, the first prong of

Adjudication of Saucedo’s claims would also entail common

26

questions of law and fact.

27

legal bases for Saucedo’s claims are the same as those for Hill’s

28

and Baker’s.

Defendant does not dispute that the

And whether Defendant violated the FLSA and
4

California’s wage-and-hour laws with respect to Saucedo will entail

2

factual questions concerning the nature of his employment and

3

duties, which are the same inquiries required by Hill’s and Baker’s

4

claims.

5

the plaintiffs in Coughlin had with each other.

6

forty-nine individuals seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the

7

former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to adjudicate

8

their applications or petitions.

9

However, the plaintiffs did not allege a systematic pattern or

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

policy of the INS, and their applications and petitions sought

11

different types of relief, requiring the INS to “apply different

12

legal standards.”

13

court’s decision to sever the claims of forty-eight plaintiffs,

14

leaving only the claims of the named plaintiff to be adjudicated.

15

Id. at 1351.

16

Defendant engaged in a pattern of wage-and-hour violations, and the

17

legal bases for their claims are the same.

18

Saucedo has much more in common with Hill and Baker than

Id.

That case involved

Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1349.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district

Here, Saucedo and the current Plaintiffs allege that

Defendant contends that it will suffer prejudice because a

19

jury likely will be “hopelessly confused” by the claims of three

20

Plaintiffs.

21

is no indication that a jury would be unable to give proper

22

consideration to three Plaintiffs’ claims.

Opp’n at 10:8.

23
24

This argument is without merit.

There

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion

25

for leave to file a third amended complaint.

26

Within three days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file

27

their third amended complaint so that it is a separate docket entry

28

in the public record.
5

(Docket No. 288)

1

A settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D.

2

Laporte is set for June 15, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.

3

case-dispositive motions and a further case management conference

4

will be held on November 17, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.

5

The hearing on all

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: 5/23/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6