Harris et al v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Filing 54

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 46 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTPlaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended document. Amended Pleadings due by 7/14/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STARVONNA HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., Case No. 17-cv-00446-HSG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 46 Defendant. 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended 13 complaint, Dkt. No. 46, which is now fully briefed. The motion seeks to add a seventh cause of 14 action for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et 15 seq., by Plaintiff Harris, on behalf of Defendant’s current and former California employees. Dkt. 16 No. 46-2 at 22–24 (redlined second amended complaint). Under Federal Rule of Procedure 17 15(a)(2), “leave to amend shall be freely granted ‘when justice so requires.’” Townsend v. Univ. 18 of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). “This policy is to 19 be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 20 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The five factors relevant to determining proper 21 amendment are (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 amendment, and (5) previous amendments. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Wash. State Republican Party v. Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012) (same factors). The Court weighs prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice or make a strong showing as to any of the other 1 Foman factors, and the presumption in favor of granting leave to amend applies. The Court thus 2 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.1 The second amended complaint must be filed by July 14, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: 7/13/2017 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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

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?