Khan v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAIFULLAH KHAN, Case No. 19-cv-08027-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 v. FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 10 AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 39 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Saifullah Khan filed this discrimination action against A100 US, LLC (“A100”) 13 and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) alleging age and national origin discrimination and 14 bringing claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Business & 15 Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and the California Labor Code, as well as a claim for wrongful 16 termination in violation of public policy. (Dkt. No. 1-1.)1 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend 17 seeking to name an additional defendant, delete certain claims, and plead additional facts is now 18 pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 39.) After carefully considering the parties’ briefs, the Court 19 concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the 20 December 3, 2020 hearing, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that a party may amend a pleading before 23 trial “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and that the “court should 24 freely give leave when justice so requires.” Though Rule 15(a) is “very liberal . . . a district court 25 need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 26 sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen 27 1 Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). Undue delay cannot alone justify 2 the denial of a motion to amend. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 3 712–13 (9th Cir. 2001). The most important factor is prejudice to the opposing party. See Zenith 4 Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971). A “determination should 5 be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, 6 Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 7 Here, Mr. Khan seeks leave to amend the complaint to (1) add Amazon.com, Inc. 8 (“Amazon”), one of Mr. Khan’s alleged employers and the parent company of A100 and AWS, as 9 a defendant; (2) delete Labor Code claims for failure to provide business expense reimbursements 10 and pay withheld wages; (3) and allege additional facts, chiefly that Defendants terminated Mr. 11 Khan on the basis of false allegations regarding his English language proficiency and false claims 12 regarding his work performance. The proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) also alleges 13 that Defendants have destroyed many contemporaneous documents underlying Mr. Khan’s 14 termination. (Dkt. No. 39-1 at 10 ¶ 12.) Mr. Khan contends that amendment is proper so that he 15 can adequately pursue his claims and recover against Amazon, one of his alleged employers, and 16 because he has only recently learned of Defendants’ alleged document spoliation. Defendants 17 oppose amending the complaint to add Amazon as a defendant because there is no “legal or factual 18 basis for this addition[,]” and because Mr. Khan has improperly delayed in filing his motion to 19 amend. 20 Amendment is proper. First, there is no evidence of prejudice to Defendants. See Owens, 21 244 F.3d at 712 (finding appellants suffered no prejudice when appellee amended its answer 22 because there was no delay in proceedings). Fact discovery does not close for over three months. 23 While Defendants argue that adding Amazon as a defendant would require revisiting discovery 24 that has already been completed, such as exploring Mr. Khan’s employment contacts with 25 Amazon, permitting Mr. Khan to amend the complaint “would not require a wholesale reopening 26 of discovery after discovery has been closed.” Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-003305- 27 LHK, 2012 WL 6202797, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation 1 delay the current schedule. 2 Second, there is no evidence of bad faith. See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712 (finding no 3 evidence of bad faith because appellee offered “substantial competent evidence” as to why it 4 delayed in filing a motion to amend). Mr. Khan’s amendments are designed to promote a just 5 resolution of the case on its merits, and Defendants do not contend that the motion was filed in bad 6 faith. 7 Third, any delays in filing Mr. Khan’s motion are not undue. Mr. Khan observes that a 8 delay in filing his motion is attributable, in part, to his change in counsel in late April, and because 9 he only recently learned of Amazon’s role in the alleged document spoliation. (Dkt. No. 39-1 at 4 10 ¶ 6.) See Owens, 244 F.3d at 712–13 (finding no unreasonable delay because appellee moved to 11 amend as soon as it became aware of an applicable defense). Additionally, Mr. Khan 12 corresponded with Defendants’ counsel regarding his plan to file an amended complaint soon after 13 the parties’ mediation that occurred from September 9-10, 2020, and provided Defendants with a 14 draft of the proposed FAC on October 19, 2020 after receiving a supplemental production of 15 documents from Defendants. (Dkt. No. 39-1 at 4 ¶¶ 3-4.) On October 20, 2020, Defendants 16 agreed to stipulate to the filing of an FAC so long as the parties also stipulated that the answer 17 previously filed by A100 and AWS would remain the operative response to the FAC and that 18 Amazon was not Mr. Khan’s employer. (Id. ¶ 5.) When Mr. Khan declined to stipulate to these 19 terms, Defendants withdrew their proposed offer to stipulate to the filing of an FAC and argued in 20 an e-mail to Mr. Khan’s counsel dated October 22, 2020 that the filing delay was undue. (Id.) 21 When parties communicate regarding a stipulation to an amended complaint, even if ultimately 22 unsuccessful, this supports a finding that the plaintiff has not unduly delayed in filing his motion. 23 See Lee v. TRW, Inc., No. CV 02005172 FMC (RZx), 2003 WL 27382059, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24 15, 2003). Moreover, even if the Court assigned great weight to Mr. Khan’s access to documents 25 in February 2020 illustrating the corporate relationship between Amazon, A100, and AWS (Dkt. 26 No. 43-1 at 2 ¶ 7), “undue delay by itself . . . is insufficient to justify denying a motion to amend.” 27 Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” 2 Sweaney v. Ada County, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). “The 3 proper test to be applied when determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is 4 identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a pleading challenged under Rule 5 12(b)(6).” Nordyke v. King, 644 F.3d 776, 788 n.12 (9th Cir. 2011), on reh'g en banc, 681 F.3d 6 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court therefore “must accept 7 as true all factual allegations in the [proposed] complaint,” as it would on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 8 Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 9 2014). 10 Here, there is nothing that establishes that amendment of Mr. Khan’s complaint would be 11 futile. Defendants’ contention that adding Amazon as a defendant would be futile is misplaced. 12 The Court cannot consider Defendants’ factual arguments regarding Amazon in the case’s current 13 procedural posture; rather, the Court must accept the factual allegations in the proposed amended 14 complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to Mr. Khan, pertinently that 15 Amazon was a joint employer of Mr. Khan and acted collectively as his employer. (Dkt. No. 39-1 16 at 8-10 ¶¶ 1-12.) Defendants’ insistence that Mr. Khan’s FEHA claims require showing an 17 employment relationship with Amazon is likewise unavailing as it ignores that FEHA reaches 18 joint employers. See, e.g., Vernon v. State of California, 116 Cal. App. 4th 114, 125 (2004); 19 Scates v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-06365-VAP-MAAx, 2020 WL 5759121, 20 at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2020). The Court thus cannot say that Mr. Khan’s proposed 21 amendments would be futile as a matter of law. 22 Accordingly, the balance of factors supports granting Mr. Khan leave to amend under Rule 23 15(a)(2). 24 CONCLUSION 25 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall 26 file the proposed amended complaint within 3 court days. The case management conference 27 scheduled for December 3, 2020 is continued to December 10, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. A joint case 1 This Order disposes of Dkt. No. 39. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: November 24, 2020 4 5 ne ‘'ACQUELINE SCOTT COR 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28