Davis v. Advance Services, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURIEL DAVIS, No. 2:22-cv-00343-MCE-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ADVANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Duriel Davis’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to 18 File a Supplemental Complaint. ECF No. 42; see also Pl.’s Mem. ISO Mot. Leave, ECF 19 No. 42-2 (“Pl.’s Mem.”). The following groups of Defendants filed Statements of Non- 20 Opposition to the Motion: (1) Carlos Guerrero; and (2) Archer-Daniels-Midland 21 Company, ADM Rice, Inc., ADM Milling Company, Janet Escalante, Matthew House, 22 and Johnny Barnett.1 ECF Nos. 44–45. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d)2 provides that, “[o]n motion and reasonable 24 notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading 25 setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the 26 1 Defendant Advance Services, Inc., who previously filed an Answer to the original Complaint, did not file any response to the present Motion. Defendants Rush Personnel Services, Inc., and Omar 27 Rosales have not filed a response or otherwise appeared in this action. 28 2 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 | pleading to be supplemented.” See also Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858, 874 2 | (9th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 15(d) provides a mechanism for parties to file additional causes of 3 | action based on facts that didn’t exist when the original complaint was filed.”). “A trial 4 | court has broad discretion in deciding whether to permit a supplemental pleading.” 5 | Yates v. Auto City 76, 299 F.R.D. 611, 613 (N.D. Cal. 2013). The Court's “focus is on 6 | judicial efficiency[,]” but “factors such as prejudice to the defendant, laches, or futility 7 | may weigh against allowing a supplemental pleading.” Id. 8 Here, Plaintiff's additional allegations are that he “was terminated from his job as 9 | aresult of race[] based discrimination and harassment, and/or retaliation, and that he 10 | timely obtained a ‘Right to Sue’ letter from the California Department of Civil Rights.” 11 | Pl.’s Mem., at 3; see also Ex. A, Winter Decl., ECF No. 42-1, 19, 20, 24(f) (proposed 12 | First Amended and Supplemental Complaint). Plaintiff does not include new causes of 13 | action or parties, and his additional allegations are related to his original causes of action 14 | of racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The Court does not find the filing of 15 || a supplemental complaint will prejudice Defendants especially in light of some 16 | Defendants’ non-oppositions and other Defendants’ failures to respond to the Motion. 17 Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint, ECF 18 | No. 42, is GRANTED.® Not later than five (5) days from the date this Order is 19 | electronically filed, Plaintiff shall file his First Amended and Supplemental Complaint on 20 | the docket. Failure to file will be considered to be a waiver of filing by Plaintiff. 21 IT |S SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: October 12, 2023 23 J Lat LEK ee NK 4 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 | hearing and decides tis matter on the briefs. Local Rule 230),