Ali v. Stericycle, Inc. et al
Filing
33
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 27 Motion to Amend/Correct (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
HASSAN ALI,
Plaintiff,
8
9
v.
STERICYCLE, INC., et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-3837 PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Defendants.
_______________________________/
12
13
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint came on for hearing
14
before this court on April 10, 2013. Plaintiff Hassan Ali (“plaintiff”) appeared through his
15
counsel, Daniel Feder. Defendants Stericycle, Inc. and Stericycle Specialty Waste
16
Solutions, Inc. (“defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Jacqueline deSouza. Having
17
read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and carefully considered the arguments
18
and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES
19
plaintiff’s motion, for the reasons stated at the hearing and as follows.
20
In his operative complaint, plaintiff asserts a cause of action for retaliation under Cal.
21
Labor Code § 98.6. Through this motion, plaintiff attempts to add an additional cause of
22
action for retaliation, this time under Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5, and to add “new facts” in
23
support of that cause of action. However, plaintiff has been unable to explain (either in his
24
papers or at the hearing) how this proposed new cause of action adds anything to the case.
25
Instead, the section 1102.5 cause of action appears to be entirely duplicative of the section
26
98.6 cause of action. Moreover, the factual matters that plaintiff seeks to add are not newly
27
discovered but are instead all matters within his personal knowledge and are taken for the
28
most part from his own deposition. As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of
1
convincing the court why amendment is justified at this stage of the case (with extensive
2
discovery having already been conducted in the almost two years since the filing of the
3
original complaint). Because plaintiff has not done so, his motion is DENIED.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?