Rittmann et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 261

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 244 Motion to Amend. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an amended complaint within seven (7) days of this Order. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (SS)

Case 2:16-cv-01554-JCC Document 261 Filed 01/30/23 Page 1 of 4

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al.,

10
v.

11
12

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C16-1554-JCC
ORDER

AMAZON.COM INC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the consolidated

16

complaint (Dkt. No. 244). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant

17

record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18

I.

19

BACKGROUND
On March 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Kimberlee Keller and Tommy Garadis (“Keller Plaintiffs”)

20

provided statutory notice to Defendants and to the California Labor Workforce Development

21

Agency (“LWDA”) of their intent to pursue Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claims for

22

Defendants’ alleged Labor Code violations. (Dkt. No. 245-1.) On March 13, 2017, the Keller

23

Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of California. (Dkt. No.

24

245 at 2.) The complaint did not include PAGA claims, as the required 65-day waiting period to

25

allow LWDA to respond had not yet lapsed. (Id.)

26

In April 2017, Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of California. Keller
ORDER
C16-1554-JCC
PAGE - 1

Case 2:16-cv-01554-JCC Document 261 Filed 01/30/23 Page 2 of 4

1

et al v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. C19-1719-JCC, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019)

2

(hereafter “Keller”). In May 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer venue.

3

Id., Dkt. No. 13. The Court granted the stay in August 2017. Id., Dkt. No. 35. In October 2019,

4

the case was transferred to this district and the stay was lifted. Id., Dkt. No. 84. In November

5

2019, the case was transferred to this Court. Id., Dkt. No. 90. In June 2022, the case was

6

consolidated with the instant case. (Dkt. No. 200.) At that time, this case was stayed.

7

On July 26, 2022, the Court lifted the stay in part, and ordered to parties to submit a joint

8

status report on how the consolidated cases should proceed. (Dkt. No. 226.) On September 15,

9

2022, the Court lifted the stay in full, and ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule for

10

the case. (Dkt. No. 234.) On October 11, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order, which

11

included a deadline for Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint. (Dkt. No. 237.) Plaintiffs filed

12

a consolidated complaint on November 14, 2022. (Dkt. No. 238.)

13

Plaintiffs now ask the Court for leave to amend the consolidated complaint to add a

14

PAGA claim on behalf of the Keller Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 244.)

15

II.

DISCUSSION

16

Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally improper under Rule 16(b).

17

(Dkt. No. 250 at 9–10.) The Court previously set a deadline for the Plaintiffs to file an amended

18

consolidated complaint. (Dkt. No. 237 at 3.) Given the complexity of this case, with multiple

19

parties and consolidated cases, the Court also stated that leave to amend was granted for the

20

“sole purpose of consolidating the various cases before the Court into one complaint.” (Dkt. No.

21

234 at 3 n.1.)

22

Because the Court already set a deadline for amendment, Plaintiffs may only modify the

23

Court’s scheduling order for good cause and with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

24

The focus of inquiry for deciding whether such good cause exists is whether the party seeking

25

modification has been diligent. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870

26

F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017).
ORDER
C16-1554-JCC
PAGE - 2

Case 2:16-cv-01554-JCC Document 261 Filed 01/30/23 Page 3 of 4

1

Here, although it has been almost six years since the Keller Plaintiffs filed suit, the Court

2

nonetheless concludes they have been diligent in seeking amendment. After the Keller Plaintiffs

3

first filed suit, they were required to wait 65 days before adding any PAGA claims. Before the

4

waiting period had expired, the case was removed, transferred, and stayed numerous times.

5

When Keller was transferred to this district, the Court noted the claims in the case were

6

“identical to, or closely mirror, the claims in Rittmann/Mack,” implying the Keller case would be

7

consolidated with Rittmann. Keller, C19-1719-JCC, Dkt. No. 84 at 3. At that time, Rittmann was

8

stayed. Although Keller was not technically stayed, it was not unreasonable for the Keller

9

Plaintiffs to assume that they could not move forward until the stay was lifted in Rittmann.

10

Given the unique facts and complexity of this case and the number of parties involved, it

11

would be unreasonable to conclude that the Keller Plaintiffs were not diligent when they waited

12

until now to request leave to amend the complaint to add PAGA claims. Thus, the Court finds

13

good cause and will consider the motion to amend. Under Rule 15, leave to amend should be

14

freely granted when justice so requires, absent undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure

15

deficiencies, undue prejudice to the other party, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371

16

U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

17

As noted above, although six years have passed since the initial Keller complaint was

18

filed, the delay was not due to bad faith by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendants will not face

19

undue prejudice if Plaintiffs are allowed to amend to add these claims. Defendants were on

20

notice that the Keller Plaintiffs intended to bring PAGA claims when Plaintiffs provided

21

statutory notice to the LDWA in 2017. Additionally, there already exist other plaintiffs who

22

bring PAGA claims in the current consolidated complaint. This means that allowing amendment

23

here will not significantly expand the nature of the suit, as Defendants suggest. Finally, the case

24

is still at the very early stages and allowing an amendment will not delay the case in any

25

meaningful way.

26

Defendants also argue amendment is futile because the claims are time-barred. (Dkt. No.
ORDER
C16-1554-JCC
PAGE - 3

Case 2:16-cv-01554-JCC Document 261 Filed 01/30/23 Page 4 of 4

1

250 at 13–15.) However, an amended complaint alleging PAGA claims may relate back to the

2

original complaint, as long as the amendment is based on the “same set of facts” as the timely-

3

filed complaint. Waisbein v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 2008 WL 753896, slip op. at 1 (N.D.

4

Cal. 2008) (citing California cases); see also Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1192

5

(E.D. Cal. 2017). And the case cited by Defendant is not applicable to the case at hand. See

6

Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc. 80 Cal. App. 5th 782, 792 (2022) (amended complaint did

7

not rest on same facts as original complaint). Thus, the amendment is not time-barred and not

8

futile.

9

III.

10

CONCLUSION
Because Defendants have not provided any compelling reason that amendment should

11

not be granted, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the consolidated

12

complaint (Dkt. No. 244). Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an amended complaint within seven

13

(7) days of this Order.

14

DATED this 30th day of January 2023.

A

15
16
17

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C16-1554-JCC
PAGE - 4