Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01801/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01801-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

- 1 - 07cv1801

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONOVAN DELMARE, on behalf of

himself, and on behalf of all persons

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1801 W (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

AMEND THE FIRST

vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT

SUNGARD HIGHER EDUCATION,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Donovan Delmare seeks to amend the First Amended Complaint to add

a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. No opposition having been

filed, the Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument

under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d.1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the

motion (Doc. No. 26).

I. BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2007, Plaintiff commenced this action against Sungard Higher

Education, Inc., and Systems and Computer Technology Corporation (collectively,

Case 3:07-cv-01801-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 05/29/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07cv1801

“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and other

employees as exempt from overtime, and improperly denied these employees overtime

compensation.

 The original complaint asserted seven causes of action. On October 23, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that eliminated the second cause of action for

Failure to Reimburse Expenses in Violation of F.L.S.A. § 207(e)(2). Plaintiff now seeks to

file a Second Amended Complaint adding a cause of action under the Labor Code Private

Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). 

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after a responsive

pleading has been served, a party may amend its complaint only with leave of court and

leave “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a). Granting leave

to amend rests in the sound discretion of the district court. See International Ass’n of

Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1985).

In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, district courts should consider several factors

including undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, bad faith

and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. See Sisseton-Wahpeton

Sioux Tribe v. U.S., 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996).

As an initial matter, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend based on

Defendants’ failure to file an opposition as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c). Under

this Local Rule, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file papers in the manner required by Local

Rule 7.1(e)(2), that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of that motion or other

ruling by the court.” The Ninth Circuit has held that pursuant to such local rules, a district

court may properly grant a motion for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for failure to file timely

opposition to motion to dismiss where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time

to respond). Accordingly, relying on Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c), the Court deems

Case 3:07-cv-01801-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 07cv1801

Defendants’ failure to oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend as consent to its merits, and the

Court GRANTS the motion. 

Aside from Defendants’ failure to oppose the motion, the Court also finds that

Plaintiff has satisfied the standard for granting a motion to amend. Here, Plaintiff did not

unduly delay in moving to amend the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff could not add

the PAGA claim until after expiration of the waiting period following notice to the relevant

state agency. The waiting period expired on March 10, 2008, and Plaintiff filed the motion

to amend on April 7, 2008. Thus, Plaintiff moved promptly to amend. 

Furthermore, having independently examined the other Rule 15 factors, the Court

concludes that they also weigh in favor of granting leave to amend. The proposed

amendment will not change the nature of the case. Additionally, in light of the lack of any

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by

the amendment and that the motion to amend is not brought in bad faith. Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend (Doc. No. 26). Plaintiff is given 5 days from the date of this order to file and serve

the Second Amended Complaint, which shall be identical to Exhibit 1 attached to the

Declaration of Aparajit Bhowmik. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 28, 2008

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01801-W-CAB Document 30 Filed 05/29/08 Page 3 of 3