Preston v. Porch.com, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' joint motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit. The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to file the amended complaint within three court days and suspending the defendants' obligation to file a responsive pleading pending settlement approval.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint“In light of the extremely liberal policy in favor of amendment and Defendants’ non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which requires that leave be freely given when justice so requires. The court cited the controlling factors from Foman v. Davis and noted the lack of opposition from the defendants. Given the joint nature of the motion and the absence of any showing of futility or prejudice, granting leave is the legally correct outcome. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (FRCP 15(a)(2)) and the relevant case law (Foman, Morongo, Jordan). It notes the joint nature of the motion and the defendants' non-opposition, which are sufficient grounds for granting leave in the absence of futility. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a routine procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARIANA PRESTON, individually and on Case No.: 21-CV-168 JLS (BLM) behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A v. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 PROCH.COM, INC., a Delaware 15 (ECF No. 29) corporation; HIRE A HELPER LLC, a 16 California limited liability company; KERI MILLER, an individual; and DOES 17 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to File a First 22 Amended Complaint (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 29). 23 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a plaintiff may amend her complaint 24 once as a matter of course within specified time limits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all 25 other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent 26 or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts generally grant leave to amend absent a showing of “undue delay, 28 bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 1 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 2 allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 3 182 (1962). “Rule 15(a) ‘is to be applied with extreme liberality,’ and whether to permit 4 amendment is a decision ‘entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” EFG Bank 5 AG, Cayman Branch v. Transam. Life Ins. Co., No. 216CV08104CASGJSX, 2019 WL 6 5784739, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. 7 Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); Jordan v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311, 8 1324 (9th Cir. 1982)). 9 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the FAC to “(1) add additional affiliated Defendants, 10 (2) clarify the putative class definition to conform to the Settlement, and (3) add additional 11 claims that pertain to newly discovered theories of liability that are to be released in the 12 proposed Settlement, including claims for Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act 13 (‘PAGA’) penalties premised on alleged violations of California Labor Code, as permitted 14 by California Labor Code § 2698 et seq.; Defendants’ alleged failure to provide meal 15 periods, and authorize and permit rest periods; Defendants’ alleged failure to furnish 16 accurate wage statements; Defendants’ alleged failure to reimburse business related 17 expenses; and Defendants’ alleged failure to pay vested vacation wages at the time of 18 separation of employment.” Joint Mot. at 2. In light of the extremely liberal policy in 19 favor of amendment and Defendants’ non-opposition to Plaintiff’s request, the Court 20 GRANTS the Joint Motion. 21 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 22 29). Plaintiff SHALL FILE the First Amended Class Action Complaint, previously filed 23 as Exhibit A at ECF No. 29, within three (3) Court days of the electronic docketing of this 24 Order. Thereafter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL UPDATE the caption and docket 25 accordingly. Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, Defendants shall not be required to file a 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 |/responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint pending approval of the Parties’ 2 || proposed Settlement. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: November 24, 2021 tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28