Woodburn v. City of Henderson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 21, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01488
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** KELLY WOODBURN, et al., 7 2:19-cv-01488-JAD-VCF Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER vs.

9 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 10 CITY OF HENDERSON, AMEND COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 40] Defendant. 11

12 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 40). The Court 13 grants the motion to amend. Plaintiffs have seven days to file their amended complaint. 14 I. Background 15 The scheduling order, which the parties stipulated to, sets the deadline to amend pleadings or add 16 parties on July 19, 2021. (ECF No. 28 at 6). Discovery in this case closes on October 15, 20201. (Id.) 17 Plaintiffs bring claims against the City of Henderson for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor 18 Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207: plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint as they 19 wish to include a currently employed Corrections Officer, Joshua Rodriguez, as an additional plaintiff 20 (he brings the same claims as the current plaintiffs). (ECF No. 40 at 2). The defendant argues in its 21 response that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend should be denied because it is futile and untimely 22 since plaintiffs filed this case in 2019. (ECF No. 48). The plaintiffs argue in their reply that their 23 amended complaint is not futile because it merely adds an additional plaintiff without making any other 24 changes and it is not untimely as defendants had notice that plaintiffs intended to amend and add 25 1 1 Rodriguez as a plaintiff. (ECF No. 53). 2 II. Discussion 3 “[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's 4 leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Ninth 5 Circuit has found that the policy of Rule 15, “is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 6 Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 7 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1999) (Finding that there is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment). 8 “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, 9 undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has 10 previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 Courts are empowered to deny leave to amend based on the futility of the amendment. See e.g., 12 Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2015). "Denial of leave to amend on this ground 13 [futility] is rare. Ordinarily, courts will defer consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed 14 amended pleading until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed." Netbula, 15 LLC v. Distinct Corp., 212 F.R.D. 534, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “Deferring ruling on the sufficiency of the 16 allegations is preferred in light of the more liberal standards applicable to motions to amend and the fact 17 that the parties' arguments are better developed through a motion to dismiss or motion for summary 18 judgment.” Steward v. CMRE Fin'l Servs., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141867, 2015 WL 6123202, at 2 19 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2015); citing to In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 536 20 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1135-36 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 21 The parties stipulated to the July 19, 2021 deadline to amend in the complaint, which included 22 adding parties. The plaintiffs filed their motion to add a party long before the deadline per the parties’ 23 stipulation (and this Court’s order). The Court finds that the plaintiffs were diligent and have timely 24 sought leave to amend in good faith. The Court finds that the defendant will not be prejudiced because it 25 2 1 move to dismiss the amended complaint and defendant has plenty of time to take any additional 2 || needed discovery pertaining to the new plaintiff. The Court finds that the defendant’s futility arguments 3 || are better addressed through a motion to dismiss given the extreme liberality of amendment promoted by 4 15. Court finds that the plaintiff has met the requirements for amendment pursuant to Rule 15. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend its complaint (ECF No. 40) is 7 || GRANTED. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs have until Monday, June 28, 2021 to file their 9 || amended complaint. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll DATED this 21st day of June 2021. LO. pt □ HOODOO □□□□ 12 CAMFERENBACH B UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25