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)

Download PDF
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?