Harrison v. 1-800-Flowers Team Services, Inc. et al

Filing 204

OPINION AND ORDER: regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 202 . After consideration of the parties' respective positions, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Ordered and Signed on 06/28/2021 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

JENNIFER HARRISON, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00410-CL

OPINION AND ORDER

V.

HARRY & DAVID OPERATIONS, INC.,
and HARRY AND DAVID, LLC,
Defendants.

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint (#202). After consideration of the parties' respective positions, Plaintiff's motion is
GRANTED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend a pleading "shall be
freely given when justice so requires." Rule 15(a) creates a liberal policy in favor of granting
leave to amend "so that matters may be decided on merit rather than 'bare pleadings."'

Page I - Opinion and Order

Heffington v. Gordon, No. 3:16-cv-02079-AC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119425, *2 (D. Or. July
28, 2017) citing United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977,979 (9th Cir. 1981). In determining
whether leave to amend is appropriate, the court considers "the presence of any of four factors:
bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and/or futility." Owens v. Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) quoting Griggs v. Pace Am.
Group, Inc., 170 F .3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999).
Of all the factors, it is "the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries
the greatest weight." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F .3d 1048, I 051 (9th Cir.
2003). In evalu~ting prejudice, courts often consider whether "relevant deadlines would have to
be continued as a result of the new pleading, the stage of discovery at the time of the amendment,
the extent to which additional discovery would have to be conducted and the degree to which
amendment may delay the proceedings." lmblum v. Code Corp., 2017 WL 3594569, at *3 (S.D.
Cal. Aug. 21, 2017). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors,
there exists a presumption under rule l 5(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Knight v. Curry
Health Dist., No. l: 15-CV-01851-CL, 2016 WL 5719686, at *1 (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2016) (citing
Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052).
Defendant's reasons for objecting to Plaintiffs proposed amendments are (1) Plaintiff
knew about all the allegations she seeks to add to her complaint since before she filed her
original complaint; and (2) discovery ends in September 10, 2021. Neither of these reasons
convince the Court that defendants will be prejudiced by the amended complaint.
The proposed amendments ensure that the operative complaint will accurately reflect the
scope of the case. This case has already gone through class certification and decertification
motions where the facts and allegations have been described in great detail with citations to

Page 2

Opinion and Order

testimony and documentary evidence in the record. None of the proposed amendments are a
surprise to the Court. The majority of the amendments, if not all, seem to be based on the
discovery that has already been done in this case. Should defendants need to conduct further
discovery related to Plaintiffs amendments, they have more than two full months to do so, and
even more time for expert discovery. Therefore, leave to amend the complaint is
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3

Opinion and Order