Eric Ballard v. Lumenis Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 53 plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint. Amended pleading to be filed forthwith as a separate docket entry on ECF. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
ERIC BALLARD,

12

Case No. 5:15-cv-03164-HRL

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT1

v.

14

LUMENIS INC.,

15

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Defendant.

16
17

Shortly after the complaint was filed, the parties stipulated to conditional certification of a

18

collective class and distribution of notice. Plaintiffs now move for leave to amend their complaint

19

to replace the previously named plaintiff, Eric Ballard,2 with opt-in plaintiff Raul Cordero and to

20

add Cordero’s New York state labor law claims. Defendant Lumenis, Inc. (Lumenis) opposes the

21

motion on the ground that this case is not an appropriate collective action.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for leave to amend and

22
23

provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV.

24

P.15(a)(2). The decision whether to grant leave to amend is within the discretion of the trial court.

25

See Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave need not be granted, however,

26
1

27
2

28

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Ballard, along with several other collective members, accepted defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 68
offers of judgment.

1

where the amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith,

2

constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

3

(1962). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there

4

exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital

5

LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

This court finds no undue prejudice, bad faith, or undue delay. Although Lumenis

7

contends that the amendment will be futile, defendant essentially is asking this court to make

8

factual findings re decertification that cannot appropriately be made on the record presented. If

9

Lumenis believes that decertification is warranted, then it should bring a proper motion at the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

appropriate time.
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted. The amended complaint
shall forthwith be filed as a separate ECF docket entry.

13

SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: April 22, 2016

15
16
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:15-cv-03164-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Amy Sharyl Williams

3

Ashley Halberda

4

Daniel S Brome

5

Matthew C Helland

6

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Todd Robin Wulffson

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

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
28
3