Garcia v. M.G Luna, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIYOSHI GARCIA, et. al. Case No. 1:20-cv-00190-NONE-HBK 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE SECOND 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 WESTLAND FARMS, LLC, et. al. (Doc. No. 18) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended 18 complaint (“SAC”) with supporting exhibits, including, but not limited to, a declaration of Juan 19 Gamboa and the proposed second amended complaint. (See Doc. Nos. 18, 18-2, 18-4). Only 20 Defendant Westland Farms, LLC., filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. No. 20). A Clerk’s 21 entry of default was previously entered against Defendants Maria Guadalupe Luna and M.G. 22 Luna, Inc. for failure to timely respond to the original complaint. (See Doc. No. 11). 23 The Court’s Scheduling Order did not set a deadline within which any motions to amend 24 were required to be filed. (See Doc. No. 15). Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to the “liberal 25 amendment procedures afforded by Rule 15.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 26 465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2006). Rule 15 mandates this Court to “freely give leave when 27 justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(1)(2). “In the absence of any apparent or declared 28 reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated 1 | failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing 2 | party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment” leave must be “freely 3 | given.” Foman y. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 4 Plaintiff proposed second amended complaint includes an additional overtime claim 5 | omitted in the previous complaint and identifies the entity who allegedly grew crops on 6 | Defendant Westland Farm, LLC’s property and was responsible for the failure to pay wages to 7 | Plaintiffs, which was learned in discovery. (Doc. No. 18-1 at 2; Doc. No. 18-4). Defendant 8 | Westland does not oppose Plaintiff filing a second amended complaint and Plaintiff’s efforts to 9 | confer with M.G, Luna Inc, or Maria Guadalupe Luna went unanswered. (See Doc. Nos. 20, Doc. 10 | 18-2 at 5). Given the procedural posture of this case and upon review of the proposed second 11 | amended complaint, the Court finds no showing of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, 12 | undue prejudice, or futility. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 1. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 15 | 18) is GRANTED. 16 2. Plaintiffs shall file their operative Second Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of 17 || the date of this Order! and timely effect service of the Second Amended Complaint upon any 18 || unserved defendant. 19 3. The current served Defendants shall file a response to the Second Amended Complaint 20 | after its filing within fourteen (14) days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 21 | Dated: _ September 23, 2021 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 23 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 ! Although Plaintiffs attached a proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiffs requested 10-days within which to 27 | file its Second Amended Complaint in their proposed order. (Doc. no. 18-5). Instead of directing the Clerk to docket the proposed second amended complaint as the operative pleading, the Court will permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to 28 || file the operative pleading in an abundance of caution.