Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 NAVREET AULAKH, Case No. 2:24-cv-01151-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 CRANE WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS, LLC, 9 Defendant. 10

11 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. 18). 12 Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for violation of the 13 Silenced No More Act (RCW 49.44.211). Plaintiff’s original complaint alleges, in part, 14 that Defendant wrongfully terminated her employment after she revealed she was 15 pregnant. Dkt. 1-2. 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides “a party may amend its 17 pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court 18 should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth 19 Circuit has instructed that federal courts balance five factors when considering a motion 20 to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) the 21 possible futility of the proposed amendment; and (5) whether Plaintiff has previously 22 amended their complaint. Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th 23 Cir. 2014). 24 1 Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion claiming that this amendment is 2 futile. Defendant offers an analysis of the Silenced No More Act in comparison to the 3 severance agreement (and specifically, the non-disparagement provision) that Plaintiff 4 was provided when she was terminated from her employment. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff, in her

5 reply brief, offers a different interpretation of the severance agreement. Dkt. 20. 6 The Court must balance factors, including futility, when considering a motion to 7 amend. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s motion was brought in bad faith, was unduly 8 delayed, or prejudicial to Defendants. See Desertrain, 754 F.3d at 1154. Further, this is 9 Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to amend her complaint. Finally, with respect to futility, at 10 this stage, the Court cannot determine that no set of facts could support Plaintiff’s claim 11 for violation of the Silenced No More Act. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED. 13 14 Dated this 5th day of February, 2025.

15 16 A 17 Theresa L. Fricke 18 United States Magistrate Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24