Flores v. Dart Container Corporation ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 ANGELA FLORES, individually and No. 2:19-cv-00083 on behalf of other similarly 13 situated current and former employees, 14 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiff, TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 15 ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 DART CONTAINER CORPORATION, a 17 Nevada corporation; DART CONTAINER CORPORATION OF 18 CALIFORNIA, a Michigan corporation, and DOES 1-100, 19 inclusive, 20 Defendant. 21 22 ----oo0oo---- 23 Plaintiff Angela Flores brought this action, 24 individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current 25 and former employees, against defendants Dart Container 26 Corporation and Dart Container Corporation of California, 27 alleging claims for failure to furnish accurate wage statements, 28 unfair business practices, and a representative claim to assess 1 and collect civil penalties. Before the court is plaintiff’s 2 Motion to Amend the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Docket 3 No. 10) and for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 4 (Docket No. 15.) 5 “Once the district court ha[s] filed a pretrial 6 scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 16[,] which establishe[s] a timetable for amending pleadings[,] 8 that rule’s standards control[ ].” Johnson v. Mammoth 9 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). A party 10 seeking leave to amend under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate “good 11 cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 12 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 13 amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 14 Within three weeks after the court issued the 15 Scheduling Order, plaintiff propounded formal discovery on 16 defendants. Defendants provided initial responses to 17 interrogatories on July 29, 2019. Defendants then provided 18 supplemental responses to interrogatories by mail on October 16, 19 2019. Based on those supplemental responses, specifically policy 20 documents that outline defendants’ sick leave policy, plaintiff’s 21 counsel noticed that defendants compensated plaintiff for 22 redeemed sick pay solely at her base hourly rate and failed to 23 include shift differentials. Plaintiff contacted defense counsel 24 regarding the anticipated need to amend the Complaint to include 25 sick pay claims on October 24, 2019 –- only eight days after 26 discovering the potential claims. Under these circumstances, the 27 court finds good cause. 28 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “leave to 1 amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to 2 the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates 3 | undue delay.” Id. None of those circumstances are present 4 | here.! 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 6 | modify the scheduling order and for leave to file an amended 7 complaint (Docket No. 15) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 8 Plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date this 9 Order is signed to file an amended complaint consistent with this 10 Order. 11 | Dated: March 11, 2020 hittin th. Ld. bEeE—~ 12 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 This court’s granting of leave to file an amended complaint is without prejudice to defendants raising any 28 arguments in a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:19-cv-00083

Filed Date: 3/11/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024