Franz v. Beiersdorf, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ASHLEY FRANZ, individually and on CASE NO. 14cv2241-LAB (AGS) behalf of others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, LEAVE TO AMEND [Dkt. 86] 13 vs. 14 BEIERSDORF, INC., 15 Defendan t. 16 Plaintiff Ashley Franz seeks leave to amend her complaint to substitute a new 17 plaintiff, Stacie Somers, in her place. Dkt. 86. Because more than 21 days have passed 18 since Defendant Beiersdorf responded to Franz’s complaint, she may not unilaterally amend 19 at this stage. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But the Federal Rules are clear that “the court should 20 freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Id. In situations like this, where the 21 original plaintiff’s health might affect his or her ability to adequately represent the class, 22 courts routinely permit substitution of class plaintiffs. See, e.g., Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp. 2013 23 WL 5835780, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2013); Thorn v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, 2013 WL 2456336, 24 at *2 (S.D. Ohio 2013). 25 The Court finds good cause to permit amendment here. Defendants do not oppose 26 Plaintiff’s request, which is prima facie evidence that amendment would not result in 27 prejudice. Further, the amendment would not expand the scope of this case, as Plaintiff 28 Stacie Somers’s claims mirror those brought by the original Plaintiff, Ashley Franz. Finally, 1 || Plaintiff submits that the amendment will not affect any deadlines in this case, discovery- 2 || related or otherwise. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Dkt. 86. 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal is likewise GRANTED. 4 || Dkt. 84. The Clerk is directed to keep those documents under seal pending further order of 5 || the Court. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: October 8, 2019 lau / A (4, yy 8 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28