Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02675/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02675-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando Flores, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Metro Valley Painting Corporation, et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2675-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

(doc. #63) on May 7, 2008. The plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities

motion in support of their motion states that the plaintiffs wish to file a First

Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) to add a FLSA retaliation

claim on behalf of plaintiff Jesus Covarrubias. The proposed new claim arises

from actions taken by representatives of the defendants in February, 2008.

The Court notes that Rule 15(a)(2), the sole procedural rule relied upon by

the plaintiffs, is not applicable to the situation presented by the plaintiffs. First,

even if an amended complaint were in fact what the plaintiffs need to file to raise

their new claim (and it is not), their motion would be governed by Fed.R.Civ.P.

16(a), not Rule 15(a), since the deadline imposed by the Court for filing an

amended complaint has long since expired. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co,,

Case 2:06-cv-02675-PGR Document 65 Filed 05/08/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 The plaintiffs are advised that the total capitalization of the parties’

names in the caption of any document filed with the Court violates LRCiv

7.1(a)(3).

- 2 -

232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000); Johnson Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Second, since the proposed retaliation claim is based on events occurring

after the commencement of this action, what the plaintiffs should be seeking to

file is a supplemental complaint, not an amended complaint, under the standard

set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d). In order to rectify the deficiency in the plaintiffs’

memorandum, the Court will require the plaintiffs to file a supplemental

memorandum of points and authorities that discusses the proper legal standard

for their motion. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file a supplemental memorandum

of points and authorities in support of their Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint no later than May 19, 2008.1

 The supplemental memorandum shall

set forth why their motion should be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ time for responding to the

plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint shall run from the

service on them of the plaintiffs’ supplemental memorandum of points and

authorities.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02675-PGR Document 65 Filed 05/08/08 Page 2 of 2