Allmaras v. University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BROCK ALLMARAS, individually and Case No.: 24-cv-02021-GPC-SBC on behalf of others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND v. 14 [ECF No. 10] UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL & 15 ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC. 16 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On October 29, 2024, this case was removed to federal court. ECF No. 1. On 20 November 22, 2024, Plaintiff Brock Allmaras filed a motion for leave to amend the 21 Complaint. ECF No. 10. On December 20, 2024, Defendant University Mechanical & 22 Engineering Contractors, Inc. filed an opposition. ECF No. 20. On January 9, 2025, 23 Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF No. 23. The Court finds the matter suitable for decision on 24 the papers. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 25 amend the Complaint. 26 27 1 I. Background 2 A. Factual Background 3 On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff Brock Allmaras filed a complaint against University 4 Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc. pursuant to the California Private Attorneys 5 General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of himself and “[a]ll current and former non-exempt 6 employees who worked for Defendants in California at any time from one year prior to 7 the postmark date of the initial PAGA notice through date of trial.” ECF No. 1-3 8 (“Compl.”) ¶ 44. On October 29, 2024, Defendant removed this case to federal court. 9 ECF No. 1. 10 Plaintiff’s various claims hinge on the general allegation that Defendant required 11 “Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees to complete work while off-the-clock, without 12 compensation.” Compl. ¶ 22. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed the following 13 violations: (1) minimum wage violations (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 & 1197-98); (2) 14 unpaid overtime (Id. ¶¶ 510, 1194, & 1198); (3) unpaid paid sick leave (Id. §§ 256- 15 248.7); (4) unpaid meal period premium wages (Id. §§ 226.7, 512, & 1198); (5) unpaid 16 rest period premium wages (Id. §§ 226.7, 516, & 1198); (6) untimely payment of wages 17 upon separation of employment (Id. ¶¶ 201-03 & 256); (7) non-compliant wage 18 statements (Id. §§ 226 & 226.3); (8) failure to reimburse employee expenses (Id. §§ 2802 19 & 2804); (9) failure to provide employee records (Id. §§ 226, 432, 1174, & 1198.5); and 20 (10) failure to maintain accurate records (Id. § 1174). Compl. ¶ 55. 21 B. Related Case 22 Plaintiff previously brought a putative class action against Defendant for the same 23 underlying claims for which he now seeks PAGA penalties. Allmaras v. Univ. Mech. & 24 Eng’g Contractors, Inc. (“Allmaras I”), --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2024 WL 4860804 (S.D. Cal. 25 Nov. 20, 2024). There, this Court held one of the claims—the claim for untimely 26 payment of wages pursuant to Labor Code § 204—to be preempted under the § 301 of the 27 1 Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). Id. at *8-9. Thus, the Court had 2 jurisdiction over the untimely payment of wages claim and exercised supplemental 3 jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Id. at *10 n.4. 4 In Allmaras I, the Court ultimately dismissed all claims without leave to amend. 5 Id. at *13. The untimely payment of wages claim was dismissed as preempted under 6 federal labor-contract law. Id. at *9-10. The remaining claims were not preempted but 7 were instead dismissed because they were subject to the applicable collective bargaining 8 agreement’s (“CBA”) arbitration provisions. Id. at 10-12. 9 The Court stayed the instant case pending the disposition of the motion to dismiss 10 in Allmaras I. ECF No. 9. After the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss in 11 Allmaras I, the parties proceeded by filing several motions, including the instant motion 12 for leave to amend the Complaint. See ECF Nos. 10, 11, & 15. 13 II. Discussion 14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15, once a plaintiff’s time to 15 amend as a matter of course has expired, he may only amend by leave of court or with the 16 written consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff’s time to amend as a 17 matter of course has passed and Defendant opposes the request, ECF No. 20, so Plaintiff 18 must obtain leave from the Court. 19 “Rule 15 advises the court that leave shall be freely given when justice so 20 requires.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 21 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This policy should “be applied with 22 extreme liberality.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the Court 23 should grant leave to amend unless “the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; 24 (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” 25 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). 26 27 1 Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, there is a 2 presumption in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052. 3 Here, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments seek to remove its claim for violations of 4 Labor Code §§ 204, 204b, and 210. ECF No. 10-1 at 2. The claim brought pursuant to 5 these sections is the claim which previously gave the Court subject matter jurisdiction in 6 the related case, Allmaras I, 2024 WL 4860804, at *8-9 & 10 n.4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 7 2024). Plaintiff argues that there is no bad faith or undue delay here, as this request was 8 filed promptly after the related case was decided. ECF No. 10-1 at 3. Plaintiff argues 9 there is no prejudice given that the case is still in its infancy. Id. And Plaintiff argues 10 that amendment is not futile because it avoids redundant motion practice on issues 11 already decided in Allmaras I. Id. Defendant, in its opposition, argues that the Court 12 should dismiss the civil penalties claims brought pursuant to these sections with 13 prejudice, rather than allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to remove them. ECF No. 14 20 at 2. 15 Defendant does not cite any legal authority for the proposition that the Court 16 should dismiss the claims that Plaintiff wishes to amend the Complaint to remove. See 17 id. (absence). Defendant merely contends that because “[t]he result would be the same,” 18 the Court dismissing the claims is more efficient. Id. The Court does not agree. As 19 Plaintiff notes, there is no prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility. Defendant does 20 not contest this. Thus, there is a strong presumption in favor of granting leave to amend. 21 Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Court 22 should not apply the presumption here. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file the proposed First 3 || Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See ECF No. 10-1 at 4-39 (proposed FAC). Plaintiff is 4 || directed to file the proposed FAC by Friday, February 7, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: February 6, 2025 2 Ss 8 Hon. athe Cee 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ; 28 24-cv-02021-GPC-SBC