Berry et al v. Transdev Services, Inc. et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 56 Motion for Leave to File and Amended Class Action Complaint; and granting Plaintiffs' 69 Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing Deadlines. Plaintiffs shall file their proposed ame nded complaint, filed as Exhibit A to Docket No. 57 , within one week of the date of this order. Furthermore, the parties are ordered to submit proposed deadlines related to class certification briefing within one week. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH)

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

HOWARD BERRY and DAVID BERRY,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

Case No. 15-01299-RAJ

13
14
15
16

TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC.; TRANSDEV NORTH
AMERICA, INC., f/k/a/ VEOLIA
SERVICES, INC.; and FIRST TRANSIT,
INC.,

17

ORDER

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Class Action Complaint. Dkt. # 56. Defendant First Transit, Inc., opposes
the Motion. Dkt. # 60. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.
Dkt. # 56. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing Deadlines is also
GRANTED. Dkt. # 69.
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in the Superior Court of Washington on

July 14, 2015. Dkt. # 1. Defendants removed the case to this Court on August 14,
ORDER - 1

1

2015. Id. Plaintiffs moved for remand on September 10, 2015. Dkt. # 7. Plaintiffs’

2

motion for remand was denied. Dkt. # 14. On July 27, 2016, the Court entered an order

3

pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to allow Plaintiffs to file their First Amended

4

Complaint and to add First Transit, Inc. as a Defendant. Dkt. # 22. Defendant First

5

Transit, Inc., filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and

6

Transdev Services, Inc.’s cross-claim. Dkt. ## 26, 30. On April 14, 2017, the Court

7

denied First Transit, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and

8

granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss Transdev Services, Inc.’s cross-

9

claim. Dkt. # 48. Plaintiffs now request leave to amend their First Amended

10
11

Complaint. Dkt. # 56.
Amendment to pleadings is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

12

Rule 15(a) “provides that a party’s right to amend as a matter of course terminates 21

13

days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under

14

Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). “In all other

15

cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or

16

the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R.

17

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be guided by the

18

underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate a decision on the merits, rather than on the

19

pleadings or technicalities.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir.

20

1991); United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, the policy of

21

favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with “extreme liberality.”

22

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

23

Against this extremely liberal standard, the Court may deny leave to amend after

24

considering “the presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the

25

opposing party, and/or futility.” Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.,

26

244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). But “[n]ot all of the factors merit equal weight ... it

27

is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.”
ORDER - 2

1

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

2

prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [ ] factors, there exists a

3

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. The party

4

opposing amendment bears the heavy burden of overcoming this presumption.

5

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).

6

Plaintiffs seek to amend their First Amended Complaint to “clarify that their state

7

law claims include meal breaks,” and argue that such claims have already been a part of

8

this litigation and ongoing discovery. Dkt. # 56. After review of Plaintiffs’ First

9

Amended Complaint, the balance of the record, and the parties’ submissions, the Court

10

finds that Defendants would not be prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments.

11

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint contains numerous references to meal breaks. Dkt.

12

# 22 ¶¶ 1.2, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 6.4, 9.4, 10.4, 10.5. Although these references refer to

13

contracts between King County and Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that these contracts

14

govern Defendants’ joint operations. Dkt. # 22 ¶ 1.2. Defendants were on notice that

15

these provisions form the basis of several of Plaintiffs’ claims, particularly Plaintiffs’

16

breach of contract claim. Id. ¶¶ 9.1-9.6. Defendant First Transit, Inc. also specifically

17

refers to Plaintiffs’ response to its motion to dismiss, where Plaintiffs indicate that they

18

were prepared to amend their First Amended Complaint to allege additional facts,

19

specifically that drivers had made complaints about both meal and rest breaks. Dkt. #

20

60. While Plaintiffs did not specifically state that they intended to amend their First

21

Amended Complaint to assert meal period violations, this reference is more than

22

sufficient to put Defendants on notice that meal breaks were at issue. Dkt. # 29.

23

Defendant First Transit, Inc. does not dispute that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests

24

specifically requested information about driver complaints about rest and meal breaks

25

and that Defendant provided this information because they recognize that “the scope of

26

discovery was broad and that complaints about meal periods could potentially relate to

27

missed rest breaks.” Dkt. # 60 at 5. Defendant also notes that Plaintiffs’ interrogatories
ORDER - 3

1

also requested information about complaints, lawsuits, and investigations regarding both

2

meal and rest breaks. Dkt. # 60 at 7. This conflicts with Defendant’s assertion that the

3

discovery requested and conducted thus far shows that Plaintiffs did not intend to assert

4

a claim for denied meal periods. Dkt. # 60 at 1. Further, while Defendant argues that it

5

will be prejudiced because a possible affirmative defense of waiver was not previously

6

an issue in this case, Defendant can of course conduct further discovery on this issue.

7

Further, the Court finds no evidence of bad faith and declines to determine

8

whether Plaintiffs’ assertions are futile at this stage in the litigation. While Plaintiffs

9

request to amend their First Amended Complaint a full year after filing it, the Court

10

finds that the Defendants will not be prejudiced by this delay. Because the underlying

11

purpose of Rule 15 is to facilitate a decision on the merits, Plaintiffs should be permitted

12

an opportunity to allege every relevant fact and argument in support of their claims.

13

Defendants had notice of Plaintiffs’ claims and do not make any convincing argument

14

that amendment of the complaint would prejudice them such that the presumption in

15

favor of liberal amendment should be overruled.

16
17

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

18

amend their First Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 56. Plaintiffs shall file their proposed

19

amended complaint, filed as Exhibit A to Docket No. 57, within one week of the

20

date of this order.

21
22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26
27
ORDER - 4

1

Pursuant to this Court’s Order on July 27, 2016, case scheduling deadlines will

2

not be set under after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Other

3

than the deadline set for the filing of that Motion, which is the subject of Plaintiffs’

4

pending motion for an extension of time (Dkt. # 69), no other deadlines have been set.

5

As the Court is granting Plaintiffs leave to further amend their complaint, Plaintiffs’

6

Motion to Continue Class Certification Briefing Deadlines is also GRANTED. Dkt. #

7

69. The parties are ordered to submit proposed deadlines related to class

8

certification briefing within one week.

9
10

Dated this 7th of March, 2018.

11
12

14

A

15

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER - 5