Thomas v. FFE Transportation Services Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DENNIS THOMAS, an individual; No. 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD on behalf of all others 14 similarly situated and the ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION general public, TO AMEND COMPLAINT 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, 18 INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, 19 Defendant. 20 21 On November 29, 2018, Dennis Thomas (“Plaintiff”) sued FFE 22 Transportation Services, Inc. (“FFE”) for wage and hour 23 violations in San Joaquin County Superior Court. Exh. A to 24 Notice of Removal (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. FFE removed the case to 25 federal court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff now 26 moves to amend his complaint. Mot. to Amend (“Mot.”), ECF No. 27 13. Plaintiff seeks to add Jacinto Castillo (“Castillo”) as a 28 plaintiff and include a claim for failure to indemnify for 1 necessary expenditures. Id. at 2. 2 FFE opposes Plaintiff’s motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 18. FFE 3 argues the proposed amendment would result in undue prejudice as 4 FFE has already incurred costs in defending Castillo’s separate, 5 now-dismissed action, and that Castillo is acting in bad faith 6 and causing undue delay. Id. at 7–10. The Court finds that, 7 given FFE’s prior litigation history with Castillo, Plaintiff’s 8 proposed amendment would be unduly prejudicial. 9 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 10 Plaintiff’s motion to amend.1 11 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 FFE is a Delaware corporation. Compl. ¶ 10. Its drivers 14 deliver frozen and refrigerated groceries. Compl. ¶ 12. 15 Plaintiff represents a class of all current and former drivers 16 employed by FFE in California. Compl. ¶ 20. Plaintiff contends 17 that FFE failed to: (1) pay earned wages; (2) provide required 18 meal periods; (3) authorize required rest periods; (4) pay wages 19 on time; (5) provide accurate wage statements; and (6) pay 20 appropriate wages upon termination. Compl. ¶¶ 29-67. Plaintiff 21 alleges that FFE’s conduct amounts to unfair competition and 22 business practices. Compl. ¶¶ 72–74. 23 One year after FFE removed the case to federal court, 24 Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint. See ECF Nos. 1, 12. 25 /// 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for February 11, 2020 1 Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would add Castillo as a plaintiff 2 and include a failure to indemnify claim. Mot. at 2. 3 4 II. OPINION 5 A. Legal Standard 6 Before a court issues the scheduling order in a case, it 7 “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 8 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 9 (1962). Rule 15(a)(2)’s policy of favoring amendments to 10 pleadings “is to be applied with extreme liberality.” 11 Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 12 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In 13 deciding a request for leave to amend, “[c]ourts may decline to 14 [do so] only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad 15 faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated 16 failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, 17 undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of 18 the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma County 19 Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 20 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 21 (1962)). 22 Of these factors, the prejudice that granting a motion to 23 amend would inflict upon the opposing party impacts the analysis 24 most significantly. Howey v. U.S., 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th 25 Cir. 1973). It acts as the touchstone of the inquiry under Rule 26 15(a)(2). Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 27 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Prejudice exists where amendment will 28 significantly hinder a defendant’s ability to defend against the 1 plaintiff’s claims, as in cases where the defendant has no 2 notice, discovery has already been completed, or when the 3 amendment will require relitigation of significant issues.” 4 Owens v. Walgreen Co., No. 2:12-419-WBS-JFM, 2012 WL 2359996, at 5 *2 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2012) (citing Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil 6 Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 1989)). 7 B. Analysis 8 FFE’s primary argument in support of its opposition to 9 Plaintiff’s motion is that the proposed amendment would cause 10 undue prejudice. Opp’n at 7. According to FFE this amendment 11 would be prejudicial considering its litigation history with 12 Castillo. Opp’n at 7–8. In May 2018, six months prior to the 13 commencement of the instant action, Castillo, representing the 14 same putative class, sued FFE for wage and hour violations in 15 San Bernardino County Superior Court. Opp’n at 2; see Castillo 16 v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., No. CIVDS 1811712 (San 17 Bernardino Super. Ct. 2018). The action was removed to federal 18 court a month later. Opp’n at 2; see Castillo v. FFE 19 Transportation Services, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-01296-VAP (C.D. Cal. 20 2018). The litigation went on for almost a year, during which 21 time Castillo failed to comply with federal discovery statutes 22 and was delinquent in meeting agreed-upon and court ordered 23 deadlines. Opp’n at 2. Ultimately, Castillo failed to timely 24 file a motion for class certification and the action was 25 dismissed without prejudice in March 2019. 26 Meanwhile, as early as July 2018—four months before 27 Plaintiff filed in state court—Plaintiff and FEE discussed the 28 ongoing Castillo litigation. Declaration of David S. Binder 1 (“Binder Decl.”) ¶ 13, ECF No. 18-1. These discussions revealed 2 that Plaintiff was in communication with Castillo. Binder Decl. 3 ¶ 13. FFE requested that Plaintiff join the Castillo action to 4 avoid duplicative litigation. Binder Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff 5 ignored this request and instead filed his complaint in San 6 Joaquin County Superior Court. Binder Decl. ¶ 15. 7 Thus, Plaintiff was aware of the Castillo action, which 8 included a failure to indemnify claim, well in advance of filing 9 the instant action. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why 10 Castillo failed to actively litigate his case in the Central 11 District. And Plaintiff’s decision to file anew in San Joaquin 12 County instead of joining that ongoing litigation goes similarly 13 unjustified. What is known is: (1) FFE spent nearly a year 14 defending the Castillo action; (2) Plaintiff knew of this 15 ongoing, related litigation; but (3) nonetheless, filed 16 separately. And now Plaintiff seeks to resurrect what Castillo 17 neglected and he ignored. 18 The Court declines to allow Plaintiff to do so. Permitting 19 Castillo to join this action and adding a failure to indemnify 20 claim would, in effect, force FFE to duplicate its efforts in 21 defending Castillo’s May 2018 claims. This would result in 22 undue prejudice. Prejudice exists when the amendment requires 23 relitigation of significant issues. See Ascon, 866 F.2d at 1161 24 (denial of a motion to amend upheld where plaintiff’s failure to 25 carefully read the related statutes would result in additional 26 litigation). Just under a year spent defending Castillo’s 27 claims is not insignificant. FFE has already expended 28 substantial time and effort, which more cooperation by Plaintiff 1 at the outset would have avoided. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 2 motion is DENIED. 3 4 TILT. ORDER 5 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 6 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: February 7, 2020 kA 10 teiren staves odermacr 7008 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28