Kudatsky v. Tyler Technologies

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

13 AARON KUDATSKY, 14 Plaintiff, No. C 19-07647 WHA

15 v.

16 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 17 Defendant. SCHEDULE MODIFICATION

18 19 Granting plaintiff’s motion would prejudice the defendant and add a Gordian knot of 20 evidentiary complications at trial. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Two of the 21 three named plaintiffs that plaintiffs propose to add are not ERP implementation consultants. 22 They are senior consultants, who were expressly excluded from the certified class. And, two 23 work outside the Tyler public-sector product. A prior order herein relied heavily on records 24 from the public-sector Tyler product (training materials, schedules, and depositions by that 25 sector’s employees) to determine the scope of class certification. Class certification hinged on 26 the adequacy of those records for determining the administrative exemption. Adding new 27 records from another division would present entirely new issues. The requests for leave to 1 amend and for modification of the schedule are DENIED. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 9, 2021. 7 Pee 8 LA Te WILLIAM ALSUP 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 a 12

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