Hubbard v. Google LLC et al
Filing
274
ORDER Setting Case Schedule and Granting 265 Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on May 24, 2024. (svklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2024)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
NICHOLE HUBBARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
Re: Dkt. Nos. 265, 269
action to the undersigned. This Order follows.
I.
CASE SCHEDULE
As discussed on the record during the hearing, the Court sets the following case schedule:
Deadline for Plaintiffs to designate the subject areas of expected testimony for all experts
in support of motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2)(A): June 5, 2024
Deadline to substantially complete document discovery related to class certification: June
19, 2024
Deadline for Defendants to designate the subject areas of expected testimony for all
experts in opposition to motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
23
24
ORDER SETTING CASE SCHEDULE
AND GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FIFTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT
On May 23, 2024, the Parties appeared for a status hearing following reassignment of this
18
19
Case No. 19-cv-07016-SVK
Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) and/or rebuttal experts: July 3, 2024
Deadline for Plaintiffs to designate the subject areas of expected testimony for all rebuttal
in connection with class certification (if necessary): July 24, 2024
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification and all supporting declarations,
expert reports, evidence and other papers: September 18, 2024
1
2
all supporting declarations, evidence and other papers, including expert reports and rebuttal
3
expert reports: October 30, 2024
4
6
7
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file reply in support of motion for class certification and rebuttal
expert reports: December 11, 2024
5
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Deadline for Defendants to file opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and
II.
Hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification: January 21, 2025
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
8
The Parties also presented the Court with argument on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file
9
fifth amended complaint. See Dkt. 265 (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs seek to amend their operative
10
complaint for two reasons: (1) to replace certain unresponsive Plaintiffs, who are the sole
11
representatives of their states, with new Plaintiffs who will serve as representatives of those states;
12
and (2) to withdraw from this action (without replacement) all Plaintiffs representing South
13
Carolina and South Dakota (who are also unresponsive) along with all of Plaintiffs’ claims arising
14
under the laws of South Carolina and South Dakota. See id. at 2.
15
The Honorable Beth Labson Freeman had previously set November 6, 2023, as the
16
deadline for Plaintiffs to seek leave to amend the operative complaint. See Dkt. 173. Because that
17
date has passed, permitting Plaintiffs to amend their operative complaint would require modifying
18
the case schedule under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,
19
232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Under Rule 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for
20
good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause under Rule 16
21
“primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” See Coleman, 232 F.3d at
22
1294 (citation omitted).
23
Given the circumstances leading to multiple reassignments of this action in recent months,
24
Plaintiffs acted with sufficient diligence in seeking leave to amend their operative complaint.
25
Although it is not clear when Plaintiffs first learned of the unresponsiveness of the at-issue
26
Plaintiffs, the record reflects that Plaintiffs were certainly aware of this unresponsiveness by
27
February 2024. At that time, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the operative complaint was pending,
28
and Judge Freeman held a hearing on that motion on February 22, 2024. See Dkt. 229. It is
2
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
understandable that Plaintiffs would not raise the issue of certain Plaintiffs’ unresponsiveness and
2
Plaintiffs’ potential need to amend their operative complaint if they expected Judge Freeman to
3
issue a decision on the motion to dismiss. And Plaintiffs did ultimately bring the issue to the
4
Court’s attention just two weeks after Judge Freeman recused herself from this action (at which
5
point it was unclear when the Court would issue a decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss).
6
See Dkts. 249, 256.
7
Because Plaintiffs satisfy the good-cause standard of Rule 16, the Court must now consider
8
whether it should grant leave to amend under Rule 15. See Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody, No.
9
20-cv-03794-BLF, 2021 WL 4427384, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2021). In deciding whether to
10
grant leave to amend under Rule 15, the Court considers several factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad
11
faith; (3) dilatory motive; (4) repeated failure to cure deficiencies through previously allowed
12
amendments; (5) undue prejudice to opposing parties; and (6) futility of amendment. See
13
Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003). But
14
15
16
[n]ot all of the factors merit equal weight. . . . [I]t is the consideration of prejudice
to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight. . . . Absent prejudice, or a
strong showing of any of the remaining . . . factors, there exists
a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Id. at 1052 (emphasis and citations omitted). The Rule 15 factors weigh in favor of granting the
Motion:
Undue Delay. At the hearing, the Parties agreed that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments
would not substantively alter Plaintiffs’ allegations. In that vein, Defendants expressed a desire
not to undergo another round of motion-to-dismiss briefing and did not indicate that they would
need to file another motion to dismiss to address any of Plaintiffs’ new allegations. Thus, granting
the Motion would not require any further briefing that would derail the case schedule. Permitting
Plaintiffs to amend their operative complaint would also not impact the case schedule, and the
newly added Plaintiffs will be bound to the deadlines set by the Court’s schedule.
Bad Faith. Defendants blend their undue-delay and bad-faith arguments, and the Court
28
3
1
has already determined that granting the Motion will not result in any undue delay. See Dkt. 270
2
at 4-5.
Dilatory Motive. The record does not reflect any dilatory motive on the part of Plaintiffs,
3
4
and Defendants do not argue otherwise.
Repeated Failure To Cure Deficiencies. This factor is irrelevant because Plaintiffs do
5
6
not seek leave to amend to cure any previously identified deficiencies in their pleading, and
7
Defendants do not argue otherwise.
Undue Prejudice. Defendants will suffer no prejudice if the Court grants the Motion—
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Plaintiffs are not seeking to add substantive allegations to their pleading, Defendants will not need
10
to file a new motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs represented at the hearing that they will provide
11
responses to Defendants’ already served discovery requests for the newly added Plaintiffs without
12
requiring Defendants to serve new discovery requests and the discovery deadlines set by the Court
13
at the hearing will apply to discovery concerning those newly added Plaintiffs. 1
14
Futility Of Amendment. Defendants argue that amendment would be futile, but their
15
argument effectively asks the Court to rule on the pending motion to dismiss (i.e., amendment
16
would be futile because Plaintiffs’ allegations are fatally flawed such that this action should be
17
dismissed). See id. at 5. The Court declines to rule on the motion to dismiss prematurely.
***
18
In sum, the Rule 15 factors weigh in favor of granting leave to amend. The Court therefore
19
20
GRANTS the Motion as follows:
21
Plaintiffs shall file their amended pleading by May 28, 2024.
22
Plaintiffs may add or remove allegations only to the extent proposed in the Motion;
Plaintiffs may not add new claims.
23
24
Any newly added Plaintiffs shall file magistrate-judge-consent forms by May 31, 2024.
25
The Court will treat Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss as responsive to Plaintiffs’
forthcoming pleading such that: (1) the new pleading will not moot the motion to dismiss;
26
27
28
1
If the newly added Plaintiffs fail to comply with discovery deadlines, such failure may be highly
prejudicial to Defendants.
4
1
and (2) Defendants need not file a new motion to dismiss. 2
2
SO ORDERED.
3
Dated: May 24, 2024
4
5
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
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
28
2
Defendants may seek leave to file a new motion to dismiss for good cause by June 4, 2024.
5
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?