Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC

W.D. Washington

Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided February 5, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01151·Unknown

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NAVREET AULAKH, Case No. 2:24-cv-01151-TLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER CRANE WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. 18). Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for violation of the Silenced No More Act (RCW 49.44.211). Plaintiff’s original complaint alleges, in part, that Defendant wrongfully terminated her employment after she revealed she was pregnant. Dkt. 1-2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that federal courts balance five factors when considering a motion to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) the possible futility of the proposed amendment; and (5) whether Plaintiff has previously amended their complaint. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion claiming that this amendment is futile. Defendant offers an analysis of the Silenced No More Act in comparison to the severance agreement (and specifically, the non-disparagement provision) that Plaintiff was provided when she was terminated from her employment. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff, in her

reply brief, offers a different interpretation of the severance agreement. Dkt. 20. The Court must balance factors, including futility, when considering a motion to amend. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s motion was brought in bad faith, was unduly delayed, or prejudicial to Defendants. See Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 1154. Further, this is Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to amend her complaint. Finally, with respect to futility, at this stage, the Court cannot determine that no set of facts could support Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Silenced No More Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED. Dated this 5th day of February, 2025.

A Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NAVREET AULAKH, Case No. 2:24-cv-01151-TLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER CRANE WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. 18). Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for violation of the Silenced No More Act (RCW 49.44.211). Plaintiff’s original complaint alleges, in part, that Defendant wrongfully terminated her employment after she revealed she was pregnant. Dkt. 1-2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that federal courts balance five factors when considering a motion to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) the possible futility of the proposed amendment; and (5) whether Plaintiff has previously amended their complaint. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion claiming that this amendment is futile. Defendant offers an analysis of the Silenced No More Act in comparison to the severance agreement (and specifically, the non-disparagement provision) that Plaintiff was provided when she was terminated from her employment. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff, in her

reply brief, offers a different interpretation of the severance agreement. Dkt. 20. The Court must balance factors, including futility, when considering a motion to amend. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s motion was brought in bad faith, was unduly delayed, or prejudicial to Defendants. See Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 1154. Further, this is Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to amend her complaint. Finally, with respect to futility, at this stage, the Court cannot determine that no set of facts could support Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Silenced No More Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED. Dated this 5th day of February, 2025.

A Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge

Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC (Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related