Jacqueline Smith v. John Christner Trucking, LLC

E.D. California

Jacqueline Smith v. John Christner Trucking, LLC

DecidedSeptember 12, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00201

StatusUnknown

This text of Jacqueline Smith v. John Christner Trucking, LLC (Jacqueline Smith v. John Christner Trucking, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacqueline Smith v. John Christner Trucking, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JACQUELINE SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00201-JLT-SKO

10 ORDER VACATING HEARING AND Plaintiff, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED 11 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 v. (Doc. 12) 13 JOHN CHRISTNER TRUCKING, LLC,

14 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 15

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff Jacqueline Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in Fresno 18 County Superior Court against Defendant John Christner Trucking, LLC ( “Defendant”) for gender 19 discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination under California law. (Doc. 1-2 at 6–20.) 20 Defendant removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction on February 14, 2025. 21 (Doc. 1.) 22 On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. 23 (Doc. 12.) Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion on September 9, 2025. (Doc. 24 14.) Plaintiff’s motion is therefore deemed unopposed. 25 The Court, having reviewed the record, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral 26 argument. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing set on 27 October 8 2025, will be vacated. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion will 28 1 be granted. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 3 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 4 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the 6 adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 7 The Court is to apply this policy of granting leave with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, 8 LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health 9 Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). 10 In determining whether to grant leave to amend, the court considers five factors: “(1) bad 11 faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether 12 the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 13 2004). The factors are not given equal weight and futility alone is sufficient to justify the denial of 14 a motion to amend. Washington v. Lowe’s HIW Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1245 (N.D. Cal. 2014). 15 “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 16 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party 17 opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 18 “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [] factors, there exists a presumption 19 under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for violation of the Unruh 22 Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. (the “Unruh Act”), based on the same facts underlying 23 the existing claims. Given the lack of opposition, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff leave to 24 25 1 A “magistrate judge’s decision to grant a motion to amend is not generally dispositive; whether the denial of a motion 26 to amend is dispositive is a different question entirely. Just as ‘it is of course quite common for the finality of a decision to depend on which way the decision goes,’ so the dispositive nature of a magistrate judge’s decision on a motion to 27 amend can turn on the outcome.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686, 1694 (2015)). Any party may seek reconsideration of this order by the district judge within 28 fourteen days of the issuance of this order. See Rule 303 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern 1 amend would not prejudice Defendant.2 There is also no evidence the motion was brought in bad 2 faith, nor does it produce undue delay in the litigation, as the motion was filed before any scheduling 3 conference has been held or scheduling order has been entered in this case. Cf. Davis v. Powell, 4 901 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1212 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (Undue delay is “delay that prejudices the nonmoving 5 party or imposes unwarranted burdens on the Court.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 6 Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the proposed amendment is futile: while the Unruh Act 7 does not impose liability on employment relationships, see Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 8 LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008), Rule 8(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly 9 permits the pleading of alternative and inconsistent claims. See Radentz v. Am. Ass’n of Physician 10 Specialists, Inc., No. EDCV 13-01486 SJO (OPx), 2014 WL 12601013, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 11 2014) (permitting amendment of claims under both the Unruh Act and employment discrimination 12 law) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)–(3)). See also MMMT Holdings Corp. v. NSGI Holdings, Inc., 13 No. C12-1570RSL, 2013 WL 12191346, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 12, 2013) (declining to find 14 futility and permitting amendment of “alternative claims regardless of consistency.”). 15 Consequently, finding that none of the foregoing factors weighs against granting Plaintiff 16 leave to amend, and given that the motion is unopposed, the Court deems leave to amend 17 appropriate. See, e.g., J.M. v. Cty. of Stanislaus, Case No. 1:18-cv-01034-LJO-SAB, 2019 WL 18 1046254, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) (concluding that leave to amend was warranted in light 19 of the defendant’s non-opposition to the motion and reasonable explanation for the amendment); 20 Austin v. W. Concrete Pumping, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2363-AJB-MDD, 2018 WL 2684140, at *1– 21 2 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2018) (granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint 22 after considering the motion and the defendants’ non-opposition). 23 IV. ORDER 24 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The hearing set for October 8, 2025, is VACATED; 26

27 2 In fact, Defendant was on notice of Plaintiff’s anticipated amendment as early as June 17, 2025, upon the filing of the parties’ joint schedule report, see Doc. 5 at 3–4. See Brooke v. Patel, No. 1:20-CV-00101-NONE-SKO, 2020 WL 28 4368500, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) (no prejudice where the defendants “were aware that such an amendment was 1 2.

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JACQUELINE SMITH, Case No. 1:25-cv-00201-JLT-SKO

10 ORDER VACATING HEARING AND Plaintiff, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED 11 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 v. (Doc. 12) 13 JOHN CHRISTNER TRUCKING, LLC,

14 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 15

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff Jacqueline Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in Fresno 18 County Superior Court against Defendant John Christner Trucking, LLC ( “Defendant”) for gender 19 discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination under California law. (Doc. 1-2 at 6–20.) 20 Defendant removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction on February 14, 2025. 21 (Doc. 1.) 22 On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. 23 (Doc. 12.) Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion on September 9, 2025. (Doc. 24 14.) Plaintiff’s motion is therefore deemed unopposed. 25 The Court, having reviewed the record, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral 26 argument. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing set on 27 October 8 2025, will be vacated. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion will 28 1 be granted. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 3 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 4 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the 6 adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 7 The Court is to apply this policy of granting leave with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, 8 LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health 9 Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). 10 In determining whether to grant leave to amend, the court considers five factors: “(1) bad 11 faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether 12 the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 13 2004). The factors are not given equal weight and futility alone is sufficient to justify the denial of 14 a motion to amend. Washington v. Lowe’s HIW Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1245 (N.D. Cal. 2014). 15 “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 16 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party 17 opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 18 “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining [] factors, there exists a presumption 19 under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for violation of the Unruh 22 Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. (the “Unruh Act”), based on the same facts underlying 23 the existing claims. Given the lack of opposition, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff leave to 24 25 1 A “magistrate judge’s decision to grant a motion to amend is not generally dispositive; whether the denial of a motion 26 to amend is dispositive is a different question entirely. Just as ‘it is of course quite common for the finality of a decision to depend on which way the decision goes,’ so the dispositive nature of a magistrate judge’s decision on a motion to 27 amend can turn on the outcome.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686, 1694 (2015)). Any party may seek reconsideration of this order by the district judge within 28 fourteen days of the issuance of this order. See Rule 303 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern 1 amend would not prejudice Defendant.2 There is also no evidence the motion was brought in bad 2 faith, nor does it produce undue delay in the litigation, as the motion was filed before any scheduling 3 conference has been held or scheduling order has been entered in this case. Cf. Davis v. Powell, 4 901 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1212 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (Undue delay is “delay that prejudices the nonmoving 5 party or imposes unwarranted burdens on the Court.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 6 Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the proposed amendment is futile: while the Unruh Act 7 does not impose liability on employment relationships, see Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 8 LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008), Rule 8(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly 9 permits the pleading of alternative and inconsistent claims. See Radentz v. Am. Ass’n of Physician 10 Specialists, Inc., No. EDCV 13-01486 SJO (OPx), 2014 WL 12601013, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 11 2014) (permitting amendment of claims under both the Unruh Act and employment discrimination 12 law) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)–(3)). See also MMMT Holdings Corp. v. NSGI Holdings, Inc., 13 No. C12-1570RSL, 2013 WL 12191346, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 12, 2013) (declining to find 14 futility and permitting amendment of “alternative claims regardless of consistency.”). 15 Consequently, finding that none of the foregoing factors weighs against granting Plaintiff 16 leave to amend, and given that the motion is unopposed, the Court deems leave to amend 17 appropriate. See, e.g., J.M. v. Cty. of Stanislaus, Case No. 1:18-cv-01034-LJO-SAB, 2019 WL 18 1046254, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) (concluding that leave to amend was warranted in light 19 of the defendant’s non-opposition to the motion and reasonable explanation for the amendment); 20 Austin v. W. Concrete Pumping, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-2363-AJB-MDD, 2018 WL 2684140, at *1– 21 2 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2018) (granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint 22 after considering the motion and the defendants’ non-opposition). 23 IV. ORDER 24 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The hearing set for October 8, 2025, is VACATED; 26

27 2 In fact, Defendant was on notice of Plaintiff’s anticipated amendment as early as June 17, 2025, upon the filing of the parties’ joint schedule report, see Doc. 5 at 3–4. See Brooke v. Patel, No. 1:20-CV-00101-NONE-SKO, 2020 WL 28 4368500, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2020) (no prejudice where the defendants “were aware that such an amendment was 1 2. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc. 12) is 2 GRANTED; 3 3. Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint as proposed and attached to the 4 motion (Exhibit B to the Declaration of Ali M. Sachani) within two (2) days from the date of this 5 order; and 6 4. Defendant shall file a response to the First Amended Complaint within the time 7 permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 Dated: September 10, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jacqueline Smith v. John Christner Trucking, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacqueline-smith-v-john-christner-trucking-llc-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack