Cibelli Pacheco, et al. v. CulturaLink, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CIBELLI PACHECO, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01499-AMO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 59

12 13 This is a wage and hour action in which the Court earlier denied class treatment pursuant 14 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a 15 second amended complaint. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral 16 argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 7, 2026, is VACATED. See Civil L.R. 7-6, Fed. 17 R. Civ. Pro. 78(b). Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and 18 the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES 19 in part Plaintiffs’ motion for the following reasons. 21 This action arises from claims that Defendant CulturaLink misclassified its interpreters as 22 independent contractors, resulting in wage and hour violations. On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs 23 Cibelli Pacheco, Alexander Pogorelov, and Ishchenko Hanna filed a class action complaint against 24 Defendant. Dkt. No. 1. On October 5, 2023, based on the stipulation of the parties, Plaintiffs filed 25 the First Amended Complaint to include PAGA claims. Dkt. Nos. 17-18. 26 Following mediation, on June 4, 2024, the parties reached a limited settlement of the class 27 action in principle. See Dkt. No. 34. The Court set a deadline of December 16, 2024, for 1 extended that deadline to January 15, 2025, after the parties filed a joint stipulation for extension 2 of time to file. Dkt. No. 37. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ first motion for preliminary approval of 3 class settlement on May 30, 2025, due to Plaintiffs’ failure to address the Northern District’s 4 Procedural Guidelines for Class Action Settlements. Dkt. Nos. 38, 40. 5 On July 14, 2025, the Court set a deadline of September 12, 2025, for Plaintiffs to file a 6 renewed motion. Dkt. No. 42. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ subsequent requests for extensions of 7 time to renew their motion based on Plaintiffs’ failures to demonstrate good cause for the 8 extensions or otherwise comply with the Civil Local Rules and the Court’s orders. See Dkt. Nos. 9 43-46. On October 24, 2025, the parties again stipulated to extend deadlines. Dkt. No. 51. On 10 October 31, 2025, the Court denied that stipulation, making clear that the Court would not approve 11 a schedule that contemplated relief for a class, and ordered the parties to submit a proposed 12 schedule for the remainder of the case for resolution of Plaintiffs’ individual claims. See Dkt. No. 13 53. 14 On November 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint proposal under which Plaintiffs agreed to 15 dismiss all class and collective action claims, without prejudice. Dkt. No. 54. This did not occur. 16 On December 26, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling order setting a January 16, 2026 deadline 17 for the parties to dismiss the class and collective action claims and for a motion for leave to add 18 parties or amend the pleadings. Dkt. No. 58. 19 Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking leave to file a further amended complaint on 20 January 16, 2026. Dkt. No. 59. Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the complaint to add Yolanda 21 Robles and Richard Gordon, owners of CulturaLink, as defendants based on their respective roles 22 exercising control over Plaintiffs’ misclassification and wage-and-hour violations. Id. at 5. 23 Plaintiffs additionally seek leave to add James Coughlin as a plaintiff based on the similarity of his 24 claims to those previously asserted and because his addition “strengthens the existing collective 25 and class allegations.” Id. at 5. 27 Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint arises under Federal Rule 1 justice so requires. This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. 2 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 3 “[L]eave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing 4 party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 5 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). 6 “Not all of the factors merit equal weight . . . [I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the 7 opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052 (citation 8 omitted). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining . . . factors, there exists 9 a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original). 10 Courts may deny leave to amend “only if there is strong evidence of undue delay, bad faith 11 or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 12 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 13 amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.” Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma 14 Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)) 15 (modification in original). 16 Plaintiffs attempt through their motion to (1) dismiss the previously-asserted class and 17 collective allegations, (2) add two additional Defendants, and (3) add an additional Plaintiff. 18 Because Plaintiffs’ abandonment of the class and collective allegations are not disputed, the Court 19 takes up the latter two proposed amendments in turn. 20 A. Proposed Addition of New Defendants 21 CulturaLink avers that the proposed addition of Robles and Gordon is simultaneously 22 futile, unduly delayed, and brought in bad faith. Though Plaintiffs’ proposed addition of Robles 23 and Gordon at this late stage of the case additionally appears both unduly delayed and sought in 24 bad faith, the Court need not reach those arguments because the proposed amendment fails as 25 futile. “Although leave to amend should be given freely, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), denying leave 26 is not an abuse of discretion if ‘it is clear that granting leave to amend would have been futile.’ ” 27 Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023). If the statute of 1 limitations has run, an amendment would be futile. See Moore v. United Kingdom, 384 F.3d 1079, 2 1089 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 Plaintiffs’ original complaint alleged that Plaintiff Pacheco worked for CulturaLink from 4 April 16, 2022, through June 16, 2022, and Plaintiff Ishchenko worked for CulturaLink from April 5 16, 2022, through June 18, 2022, within California. See Dkt. No. 1. Additionally, Plaintiff 6 Pogorelov alleges he worked for CulturaLink from July 21, 2021, through December 31, 2022, 7 within Virginia. Id. 8 The statute of limitations for the California wage and hour causes of action is three years 9 from the date of the violations. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(a); Cal. Lab. Code § 203. PAGA 10 claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(a). An unfair 11 competition cause of action is subject to a four-year statute of limitation from when the unfair 12 practice was discovered or should have been discovered. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208. 13 Additionally, the statute of limitations for the Virgina overtime wage violation cause of action is 14 two years for a standard violation and three years for a willful violation. Va. Code Ann. § 40.1- 15 29.3. 16 Here, the statute of limitations has already run for the California and Virginia wage claims. 17 Accordingly, the relation back doctrine must apply for the additional defendants to be added to the 18 case. 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) provides the framework for relation back 20 when adding new defendants. The Rule requires satisfaction of three requirements: (1) the 21 amendment must assert a claim arising from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out 22 in the original pleading; (2) within 90 days from filing the complaint for service, the new 23 defendant must have received notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in defending 24 on the merits; and (3) the new defendant must have known or should have known that the action 25 would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity. Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C). Relation back as to new defendants under Rule 15(c)(1) is allowed only 27 where they knew or should have known that “but for” a plaintiff’s mistake they would have been 1 Two Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 15, both cited in CulturaLink’s opposition, 2 guide the analysis here. See Dkt. No. 60 at 4-5 (citing Krupski, 560 U.S. 538; Nelson v. Adams 3 USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460 (2000)). In Nelson, the prevailing plaintiff sought leave to add the losing 4 corporate defendant’s principal to the case in light of the losing corporation’s financial insolvency 5 and inability to satisfy a claim for attorney’s fees and costs. Nelson, 529 U.S. at 463-64. The 6 Supreme Court there noted that Rule 15(c) would not permit relation back of the claims asserted 7 against the late-named individual defendant because there had been no “mistake” about the proper 8 defendant – the plaintiff “knew of [the principal’s] role and existence and, until it moved to amend 9 its pleading, chose to assert its claim for costs and fees only against” the corporate defendant. Id. 10 at 467 n.1. In Krupski, the Supreme Court addressed more directly what sort of mistake allows for 11 relation back under Rule 15(c). See Krupski, 560 U.S. 538. There, the plaintiff sought damages 12 for a slip and fall while she was on board a cruise ship and sued Costa Cruise Lines, the entity 13 listed on the front of her cruise ticket. Id. at 542-43. Costa Cruise brought to plaintiff’s attention 14 multiple times that the proper defendant was instead an entity named Costa Cruciere. Id. After 15 the district court denied Costa Cruise’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought leave to 16 amend and name Costa Cruciere as a defendant, but the district court held that such amendment 17 would not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. Id. at 544. Though the Eleventh 18 Circuit affirmed, the Supreme Court reversed based on the presence of a mistake in naming the 19 incorrect defendant. Id. at 546, 549. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s “deliberate 20 choice to sue one party instead of another while fully understanding the factual and legal 21 difference between the two parties is the antithesis of making a mistake concerning the proper 22 party’s identity.” Id. at 549. The Court clarified that “relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) 23 depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not the amending party’s 24 knowledge or its timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading.” Id. at 541. 25 In light of this precedent, the inquiry in this case focuses on whether Robles and Gordon 26 “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against [them], but for a 27 mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C). Plaintiffs, however, 1 potential exposure to personal liability for wage and hour claims against the LLC. Plaintiffs fail to 2 demonstrate that Robles and Gordon knew or should have known that Plaintiffs made a mistake in 3 naming only CulturaLink and omitting them from the action. Indeed, through both their motion 4 and reply briefs, Plaintiffs avoid identification of any mistake – the word “mistake” does not even 5 appear in Plaintiffs’ papers. See Dkt. Nos. 59 & 61. Plaintiffs do not advance that they somehow 6 only recently learned of Robles and Gordon, who, as owners of CulturaLink, have been involved 7 in the litigation process since the filing of this case in March 2023. Plaintiffs do not articulate any 8 misunderstanding as to the individual principals’ roles in the “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” 9 giving rise to the wage and hour claims at bar. Krupski, 560 U.S. at 549. Plaintiffs’ effort to 10 amend at this stage, adding Robles and Gordon to obtain a greater payout in light of financial 11 hardship disclosed in the course of settlement negotiations with CulturaLink, thus resembles 12 Nelson more than Krupski. There has been no “mistake” about the identity of the proper 13 Defendant in this case – Plaintiffs seek only to add CulturaLink’s principals in light of the 14 anticipated difficulty with the LLC’s ability to satisfy a judgment. See Nelson, 529 U.S. at 463- 15 64. The naming of only CulturaLink as Defendant through two complaints while omitting its 16 principals reflects a strategic choice, not a mistake that warrants relation back of claims against 17 newly-introduced defendants. 18 Resisting the application of relation back under Rule 15(c), Plaintiffs aver that they have 19 satisfied the ignorance requirement of California Code of Civil Procedure § 474 such that they 20 may amend and substitute Robles and Gordon as previously-named, fictitious Doe Defendants. 21 Dkt. No. 61 at 4. Section 474 provides in part, “When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a 22 defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint . . . and such defendant may be designated in 23 any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or 24 proceeding must be amended accordingly[.]” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 474. Plaintiffs cite Butler v. 25 National Community Renaissance of California, 766 F.3d 1191, 1202-04 (9th Cir. 2014), for the 26 premise that federal courts may rely on Section 474 to allow the substitution of defendants into a 27 case after expiration of the relevant limitation period. Dkt. No. 61 at 4-5. Plaintiffs, however, 1 to permit substitution of individuals for Doe defendants, but the court rejected the proposed 2 substitution of new defendants for Does in that case because the record demonstrated that the 3 plaintiff was not “generally ignorant” of the proposed new defendants’ identities. Id. at 1202. 4 Here, Plaintiffs fail to even argue that they were generally ignorant of the identities of Robles and 5 Gordon, and they present no factual support for any claimed ignorance. Indeed, Plaintiffs fail to 6 identify any information they learned during the course of the past three years of litigation that 7 would warrant the substitution of Robles and Gordon despite their earlier omission from the case. 8 Plaintiffs’ proposed relation back thus also fails under Section 474. 9 The relation back doctrine does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, the California 10 and Viginia wage and hour claims are time-barred, and Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to add 11 Robles and Gordon as defendants is futile. 12 B. Proposed Addition of New Plaintiff 13 As previously noted, the statute of limitations has run for the California and Virginia 14 wage claims. As such, the relation back doctrine must apply for James Coughlin to be added as 15 a plaintiff. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) does not specifically address whether 16 amendments adding or changing plaintiffs “relate back” to the date the original complaint was 17 filed. Addressing an effort to add plaintiffs in the relation back context, the Ninth Circuit 18 instructed:

19 [a]n amendment adding a party plaintiff relates back to the date of the original pleading only when: 1) the original complaint gave the 20 defendant adequate notice of the claims of the newly proposed plaintiff; 2) the relation back does not unfairly prejudice the 21 defendant; and 3) there is an identity of interests between the original and newly proposed plaintiff. 22 23 Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 24 857 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). An identity of interests exists where “the circumstances 25 giving rise to the claim remain[ ] the same under the amended complaint as under the original 26 complaint.” Id. at 858 (internal brackets omitted). 27 Here, CulturaLink avers that “relation back would unfairly prejudice Defendant due to the 1 further impact on Defendant’s financial status.” Dkt. No. 60 at 7. Contrary to CulturaLink’s 2 argument, the proposed amendment would not prejudice CulturaLink or produce undue delay in 3 litigation. As Plaintiffs highlight, fact discovery remains open for approximately two more 4 months, and any discovery as to Coughlin’s particular wage-and-hour claims will likely turn out to 5 be routine. See Dkt. No. 61 at 5. As other courts have found, “the prospect of additional 6 discovery needed by the non-moving party [does not] in itself [constitute] a sufficient showing of 7 prejudice.” Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 8 (internal citations omitted). CulturaLink fails to identify any prejudice here. 9 Consideration of the other elements for amendment adding a plaintiff affirm the lack of 10 prejudice to CulturaLink. See Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. Cnty. Fed’n of Labor, 306 11 F.3d at 857. The operative complaint gave CulturaLink adequate notice of Coughlin’s claims. 12 Coughlin raises wage-and-hour claims under the laws of Virginia, which have already been part of 13 the case in light of Pogorelov’s participation to date. Moreover, Coughlin raises issues related to 14 CulturaLink’s alleged employment practices, classification decisions and control over Plaintiffs’ 15 work – issues that have been part of this case since its inception. See generally Beligan Decl., 16 Ex. C (Dkt. No. 59-1). For the same reasons, an identity of interests exists between Coughlin and 17 the existing Plaintiffs because the circumstances giving rise to Coughlin’s claims remain the same 18 under both the original and the proposed amended complaint. Immigrant Assistance Project of the 19 L.A. Cnty. Fed’n of Labor, 306 F.3d at 858. Coughlin’s claims accordingly relate back to the 20 original complaint, and their addition would not prove futile. 21 The Court notes, however, that Plaintiffs’ stated grounds for the addition of Coughlin as a 22 plaintiff is to “strengthen[] the existing collective and class allegations.” Dkt. No. 59 at 5. 23 Plaintiffs request in the same motion for leave to amend the dismissal of the collective and class 24 allegations. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint clearly abandons the 25 collective and class allegations. See Beligan Decl., Ex. C (Dkt. No. 59-1). To be clear, Plaintiffs 26 may not use the addition of Coughlin as a plaintiff to bolster the now-dismissed collective and 27 class allegations. 1 || 1. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ 3 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs may not add Robles and Gordon 4 || as defendants because the claims alleged against them would prove untimely and Plaintiffs fail to 5 establish that the proposed amendment should relate back to the original filing based on Rule 6 15(c). Plaintiffs may add Coughlin as a plaintiff because CulturaLink would not suffer undue 7 || prejudice from the addition. The Court approves Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to omit the 8 class and collective action claims. Plaintiffs may include no additional parties or claims absent 9 || leave of Court or stipulation of Defendants. Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint 10 || conforming with this order by no later than noon on May 1, 2026. 1] %L IT IS SO ORDERED. E 13 Dated: April 24, 2026

15 : 2 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN = 16 United States District Judge 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28