Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00938/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00938-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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 - 07cv938

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON BARCIA, on behalf of himself and

all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv938-IEG-JMA

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART AS

MOOT

[Doc. No. 15.]

vs.

CONTAIN-A-WAY, Inc.,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is plaintiff Ramon Barcia’s motion to amend the complaint. (Doc.

No. 15.) Defendant Contain-A-Way, Inc., has filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. No. 16) and

plaintiff has filed a reply. (Doc. No. 17.) The Court finds the matter fully briefed and appropriate for

disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons,

the Court GRANTS plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and DENIES the motion in part as

moot. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings the instant class action on behalf of employees at defendant’s recycling

centers for alleged violations of federal and state labor laws. Plaintiff filed a complaint on May

23, 2007, alleging six causes of action: (1) failure to pay earned wages and overtime

compensation; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized

statements; (4) unlawful business practices in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law;

Case 3:07-cv-00938-IEG-JMA Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 5
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

This was the last day to file any motions to amend the pleadings pursuant to Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s

Scheduling Order of December 20, 2007. (Doc. No. 14.) 

- 2 - 07cv938

(5) declaratory and injunctive relief under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act

(“ERISA”) plan; and (6) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant filed an answer on

September 14, 2007. (Doc. No. 4.)

In the instant motion, filed February 25, 2008,1 plaintiff seeks leave to: (1) add a new colead plaintiff; (2) modify the facts pleaded regarding meal and rest periods; (3) add a claim for

monetary damages in connection with the ERISA claim; (4) claim an additional remedy under

California’s Private Attorneys General Act; and (5) amend the class definition. 

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party may amend the party’s

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely

given when justice so requires.” Leave to amend is granted with “extreme liberality.” Morongo

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). “There are several

accepted reasons why leave to amend should not be granted, including the presence of bad faith on

the part of the [party seeking to amend], undue delay, prejudice to the [party opposing

amendment], futility of amendment, and that the party has previously amended the relevant

pleading.” Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. SciMed Life Sys., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1237, 1241

(N.D. Cal. 1997). “Not all of the factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held,

it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00938-IEG-JMA Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 5
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

In the proposed allegations, plaintiff claims defendant failed to pay the class overtime compensation for hours

worked “on the seventh consecutive day in a workweek.” (Doc. No. 15-3 at 14.) 

3

Defendant requests the Court to rule the statute of limitations will begin to run at the time the newly amended

complaint is filed, but does not provide any legal basis for doing so. (Opp. at 13.) The Court therefore denies the request.

4

For example, when defendant’s counsel asked Mr. Lewis to “define a rest break,” he explained it was “[d]oing

your own thing that’s not at the recycling center. Going, go to McDonald’s, get a sandwich or something or inside the

store, get a sandwich or – you know, anything that’s not doing anything for the business or –.” (Reply, Ex. 4 at 131.) Mr.

Lewis continued to include lunch in answering “rest period” questions throughout the deposition, despite defendant’s

counsel’s attempts to direct his attention solely to rest periods. (Id. at 133-35, 138, 140-42, & 144.)

- 3 - 07cv938

Analysis

1. Stipulated Amendments

Defendant does not oppose adding Randall Lewis as co-lead plaintiff to replace Matthew

Carter, who voluntarily dismissed his claims in December, 2007. Defendant does oppose the

proposed addition of facts alleging a “seventh consecutive workday claim.”2

 Plaintiff, in reply,

concedes he proposed this amendment by mistake, and no longer seeks leave to add seventh

consecutive workday allegations. (Reply at 1, 10.) Accordingly, plaintiff may add Mr. Lewis as

co-lead plaintiff and the Court denies plaintiff’s motion as moot with respect to the seventh

consecutive workday claim. 

2. Contested Amendments 

A. Amended Meal and Rest Period Allegations

Plaintiff Ramon Barcia initially pleaded he received lunch breaks but did not receive rest

periods. The proposed first amended complaint states that in addition to not receiving rest periods,

the employees “did not always receive the required break for lunch.” Defendant argues this

amendment is futile because plaintiff may not contradict the prior pleading.3

 In reply, plaintiff

argues the prior pleading was a mistake. Randall Lewis, the new co-lead plaintiff, illustrated in his

deposition on January 11, 2008 the employees’ difficulty in differentiating between meal and rest

periods. (Reply, Ex. 4.)4 He also provided factual support for the new allegations. (Id.)

Amendments to correct for attorney mistakes, even when those mistakes would have been

prevented by consultation with a client, are permissible if they do not prejudice the non-moving

party. See, e.g., Jornigan v. N.M. Mut. Cas. Co., 228 F.R.D. 661, 664 (D.N.M. 2004) (permitting

amendment to deny allegation where attorney mistakenly admitted a crucial fact, which he

Case 3:07-cv-00938-IEG-JMA Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 5
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

5

Defendant also asserts the motion is brought in bad faith. First, defendant argues plaintiff has acted in bad faith

because he initially opposed consolidating this case with a parallel action in state court but has now dismissed that action

and chosen to proceed only in federal court. Second, defendant argues the timing of the motion suggests bad faith, because

the parties agreed to a mediation beginning April 2, 2008.

Neither argument is persuasive. Plaintiff has stipulated to the use of the state court discovery in this action.

(Reply Ex. 2 at 2.) Additionally, alleging additional claims or facts may always add to the potential settlement value of

a case, but leave should not be denied merely because the parties are engaging in settlement negotiations or mediation. 

- 4 - 07cv938

discovered was untrue as soon as he consulted with his client, six months later). Defendant claims

it will be prejudiced by the need to conduct additional discovery on the new meal period

allegation. The amendment, however, is based upon the discovery conducted in parallel state

court litigation, and the cut-off date for discovery in this case is not until January 30, 2009. 

(12/20/07 Order, Doc. No. 14.) Additional discovery on this limited issue will not unduly burden

defendant at this time.5

B. ERISA Claim Amendments

Plaintiff initially pleaded an ERISA claim for injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiff’s

proposed amended complaint adds a claim for monetary damages relying on the Supreme Court’s

recent decision in Larue v. Dewolff, Boberg & Associates, 522 U.S. ____, 128 S. Ct. 1020 (2008). 

In Larue, the Court expanded the remedies available to individuals claiming breach of fiduciary

duty by a plan administrator. Defendant argues the Larue decision does not apply to plaintiff’s

ERISA claim. While the merits are unclear, defendant has not demonstrated the claim would be

futile, nor has defendant claimed prejudice resulting from the timing of the amendment.

Accordingly, plaintiff may make the proposed amendments to the ERISA claim.

C. Addition of Private Attorneys General Act Claim

Plaintiff also seeks leave to add a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act

(“PAGA”). PAGA allows a private plaintiff to recover a civil penalty for an employer’s Labor

Code violation. If awarded, the penalty is shared by the employees and the Labor and Workforce

Development Agency. Cal. Labor Code § 2699(g)(1). Thus the statute provides an additional

remedy for the Labor Code violations which were previously pleaded by plaintiff. 

Defendant argues plaintiff unduly delayed in bringing this claim. Plaintiff filed the action

on May 23, 2007, and filed the instant motion February 25, 2008. Thus the overall delay is

approximately nine months, which is not excessive. Compare Jornigan, 228 F.R.D. at 661

Case 3:07-cv-00938-IEG-JMA Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 07cv938

(permitting amendment of answer approximately six months later due to attorney error), with

Komie v. Buehler Corp., 449 F.2d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1971) (affirming district court’s denial of

leave to amend answer when motion made 31 months after answer filed); see also Mende v. Dun

& Bradstreet, Inc., 670 F.2d 129, 131 (9th Cir. 1982) (affirming denial of motion for leave to

amend answer after 25 months). Most importantly, defendant does not show it is prejudiced by

this delay. 

D. Amendment of Class Definition

Defendant does not specifically address this proposed amendment. As discussed

previously, defendant has not shown prejudice caused by the proposed amendments. Accordingly,

plaintiff may amend the class definition as specified in the proposed first amended complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion in part. Plaintiff may file

a first amended complaint within ten days which makes the amendments authorized by this order. 

The Court DENIES the motion as moot insofar as the amended complaint would add “seventh

consecutive workday” allegations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00938-IEG-JMA Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 5 of 5