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)
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?