Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00271-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARISOL TOPETE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAMOS FURNITURE; and DOES 1-100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00271-EPG

ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 46)

On August 4, 2016, this Court heard the Motion to Amend the Complaint of Plaintiffs

Marisol Topete and Rosalba Maldonado (APlaintiffs@). (ECF No. 90.) Daniel Kopfman

appeared telephonically for Plaintiffs. Paul Bauer appeared for Defendants. The Court further 

considered the arguments of counsel on the record at the time of the hearing. The Court ruled 

from the bench on the motion and incorporates that ruling herein. For the reasons described on 

the record and in this Order, the Court issues the following written order confirming its ruling 

on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. 

Plaintiffs ask for leave to amend the Complaint to add Furniture Deals, Inc. and Dima 

Manuel, Inc. as defendants. 1 Plaintiffs also ask to add factual allegations asserting that 

Furniture Deals, Inc. is the successor in interest to Dima Manuel, Inc. Plaintiffs claim that the 

 

1 The parties also refer to “Dimas Manuel, Inc.”; the Court interprets this distinction as a typographical error. 

Case 1:16-cv-00271-DAD-EPG Document 81 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discovery process has uncovered facts demonstrating that Dima Manuel, Inc. operated the 

Ramos Furniture store that employed Plaintiff Maldonado. Defendants do not object to the 

addition of Furniture Deals, Inc.—Furniture Deals, Inc. is merely the legal name for at least

some of the entities operating as Ramos Furniture—but object to the addition of Dima Manuel, 

Inc. and assert evidentiary and sufficiency objections to the allegation of successor in interest 

liability. Defendants contend that the facts of the case do not support successor liability against 

Dima Manuel, Inc. and that any amendment would thus be futile.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that amendments shall be granted 

“freely when justice so requires.” The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the merits, 

rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 649 

F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 

pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 

979 (9th Cir. 1981). “Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be granted as a matter of 

course, at least until the defendant files a responsive pleading. After that point, leave to amend 

should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in 

bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would not unduly prejudice 

Defendants and is not sought in bad faith. Although Plaintiffs’ allegations may ultimately be 

subject to a future dispositive motion, the evidence on the record before the Court at this time 

does not indisputably demonstrate that the amendment would be futile. Nor need Plaintiffs 

demonstrate at this point in the case that successor liability exists as a matter of law. An 

allegation in a complaint only requires an attorney to represent “that to the best of the person’s 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances 

. . . the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely 

have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Thus, Plaintiffs need only have some factual basis to add the disputed 

allegations, even if that basis would be objectionable at trial (as, for instance, hearsay).

Case 1:16-cv-00271-DAD-EPG Document 81 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no basis to deny the motion for leave to 

amend. The Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs shall file the First Amended Complaint no later than August 11, 2016.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 As discussed on the record, Plaintiffs may also correct any typographical errors in the proposed first amended 

complaint attached to the motion before filing it with the Court.

Case 1:16-cv-00271-DAD-EPG Document 81 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 3