DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 20, 2021·No. 3:19-cv-04029·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCO DIMERCURIO, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04029-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 9 v. AMEND

10 EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 123 Defendant. 11

12 13 The Court previously certified as a class action Plaintiffs’ claims for reporting time pay, 14 wage statements, and unfair business practices.1 (Dkt. No. 116.)2 The Court declined to certify 15 the claim for waiting time penalties and invited further briefing. (Id. at 15–17, 20.) Before the 16 Court are Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief requesting leave to amend and class certification on that 17 claim, the proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and Defendant’s opposition. (Dkt. 18 Nos. 123, 122, 125.) As explained below, the Court GRANTS leave to amend and will hear 19 argument on the class certification issue. 20 I. Leave to Amend 21 “[L]eave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, but a district court may 22 exercise its discretion to deny leave to amend due to undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on 23 part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 24 prejudice to the opposing party . . . [or] futility of amendment.” Wash. State Republican Party v. 25 26 1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 27 636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.) 1 Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation 2 omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Among the discretionary factors, “prejudice to the 3 opposing party [] carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 4 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing [by the party opposing 5 amendment] of any of the remaining [] factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in 6 favor of granting leave to amend.” Id. 7 Defendant has not established prejudice. The limited number of new facts alleged in the 8 proposed SAC, related to the refinery sale, were all known to Defendant. (See Dkt. No. 122 ¶ 10.) 9 The SAC alleges that Plaintiffs DiMercurio, Gaeth, and Langlitz were discharged in the refinery 10 sale, (id. ¶¶ 11–14), and brings a waiting time penalties claim on behalf of discharged employees 11 under Labor Code Section 201, (id. at 11, 8). While the original complaint did not name any 12 Plaintiffs who had been discharged as opposed to resigned, it did put Defendant on notice that 13 Plaintiffs intended to assert a waiting time penalties claim on behalf of discharged employees. 14 (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 40 (citing Sections 201, 202, and 203).) And, while Plaintiffs DiMercurio, 15 Gaeth, and Langlitz’s Section 201 claims did not exist at the case’s outset, because they had not 16 yet been discharged, it is safe to assume that other class members had been discharged prior to that 17 time and had actionable claims under Section 201. Defendant does not identify particular 18 discovery or litigation efforts that it would or would not have undertaken had Plaintiffs amended 19 their complaint at an earlier date. Notably, the SAC broadens only the scope of the waiting time 20 penalties sub-class, not the class. 21 Nor is there undue delay, for related reasons. “[P]laintiffs were endeavoring in good faith 22 to meet the [] pleading requirements and to comply with court guidance.” Eminence Cap., 316 23 F.3d at 1053. Finally, amendment is not futile because it produces a waiting time penalties claim 24 that is at least arguably appropriate for class certification. 25 Because Defendant has not established prejudice or made a strong showing of any of the 26 remaining factors, leave to amend is GRANTED. See id. at 1052. 27 II. Class Certification 1 on October 28, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., by Zoom video. The Court will hold the further Case 2 || Management Conference at that time. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 20, 2021 Sts 6 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC (DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mann v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.
316 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2003)