Pierotti v. Regents of the University of California

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 38 MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.Plaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended document. Amended Pleadings due by 9/11/2017; Case Management Statement due by 9/19/2017; Case Management Conference set for 9/26/2017 02:00 PM. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DIANE ALYCE PIEROTTI,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-02936-HSG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 38

12
13

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint,

14

Dkt. No. 38, which Defendant opposes, Dkt. No. 39. The motion seeks to “further particularize[]

15

the Title VII and [California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)] causes of action”

16

alleged in the initial complaint, “and splits them each into two—two causes of action for sex

17

discrimination and sexual harassment under Title VII and two causes of action for sex

18

discrimination and sexual harassment under the FEHA.” Dkt. No. 38 at 1. Defendant opposes the

19

motion, contending that amendment would be futile, because Plaintiff “failed to exhaust her

20

administrative remedies as to a FEHA or Title VII claim for harassment,” and “[e]ven if she had,

21

her claims are barred by the statute of limitations.” Dkt. No. 39 at 1.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Under Federal Rule of Procedure 15(a)(2), “leave to amend shall be freely granted ‘when
justice so requires.’” Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence
Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The five factors relevant to determining proper amendment are (1) bad faith, (2) undue
delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) previous
amendments. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Wash. State Republican Party

1

v. Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012) (same factors). The Court weighs

2

prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a

4

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original).

5

Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to

6

demonstrate prejudice or make a strong showing as to any of the other Foman factors, and the

7

presumption in favor of granting leave to amend applies. While Defendant argues that amendment

8

would be futile because Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred and barred for failure to exhaust, the

9

record on these points is not so indisputable at this stage as to warrant denial of leave to amend

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

under the applicable liberal standard. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.1 The first
amended complaint must be filed by September 11, 2017.
The Court also SETS a case management conference for September 26, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.

12
13

A joint case management conference statement is due by September 19, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: 8/22/2017

16
17

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
2