Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00273-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RICHARDSON, as an individual 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THD AT-HOME SERVICES, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation; HOME DEPOT 

U.S.A., a Delaware Corporation, 

MEASURE COMP, LLC, a Michigan 

limited liability company, and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case no.: 14-cv-273 LJO BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 21)

INTRODUCTION

On January 2, 2015, Plaintiffs, James Richardson, as an individual and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended 

Complaint (Hereinafter, “SAC”). Defendant THD At-Home Services Inc. (“Defendants” or 

“AHS”) filed an opposition opposing the motion in part. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff filed a Reply on 

January 21, 2015. (Doc. 26). The Court took the matter under submission without oral argument 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and vacated the hearing set for January 30, 2015. Upon a review 

of the pleadings, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 28 Filed 02/03/15 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

2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this case on January 23, 2014, in the Fresno County Superior Court against 

Home Depot, U.S.A. (“Home Depot”), AHS, and MeasureComp LLC (“MeasureComp”),

alleging various state law wage and hour violations. (Doc. 1). Defendants removed this action 

to this Court on February 27, 2014, based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”)

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441(a), and 1446. Id. No party has contested this Court’s jurisdiction.

On June 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) removing Home 

Depot and MeasureComp as defendants. Currently, Plaintiffs seek to file the SAC to make the 

following amendments : (1) to rename MeasureComp, and Home Depot as named Defendants, (2) 

to add a derivative claim for a violation of Labor Code § 203, and (3) to add three subclass 

definitions. Defendant AHS agrees to all of the amendments, except it opposes adding Home 

Depot as a Defendant, arguing that this amendment is futile because Home Depot does not 

employ Plaintiff or any other putative class members. 

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and 

without leave of court, before a response has been filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1); Bonin v. 

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a party can only amend the pleading with 

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave once a responsive pleading has been 

filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Here, Defendants filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ FAC and 

have not agreed to the amendment so leave of the court is required. 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when 

justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 

allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 28 Filed 02/03/15 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

3

rules require, be “freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 

Inc., 316 F. 3d 1048, 1052 (9th 2003) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has summarized these 

factors to include the following: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and 

(4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th 

Cir. 1984). These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been 

held to be the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d at 1052 (“As this circuit and others have held, it is the 

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 

Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990). Additionally, “leave to amend will not be 

granted where an amendment would be futile.” Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 

546 F. 3d 991, 1010 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The Court has examined all of the factors listed above. There is no evidence that the 

filing of the complaint will cause undue delay, that the SAC was brought in bad faith, or that 

there will be prejudice to the Defendants as this case is in its early stages. The Court is also not 

persuaded that adding Home Depot at this stage of the proceedings would be futile. 

Here, the SAC alleges not only that Defendant Home Depot is Plaintiffs’ employer, but 

also that members of the putative class were subjected to the policies and procedures of all three 

entities. (Doc. Doc. 21-2, Exhibit A, ¶¶ 9, 19). Although Defendant has submitted evidence that 

Home Depot is not the employer, the Court will not consider this evidence at this stage of the 

proceedings when Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to complete discovery on this issue to 

rebut these facts. Furthermore, under California law, the relevant inquiry in determining the 

existence of an employment relationship may be “whether the person to whom service is rendered 

has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.” S.G. Borello 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 28 Filed 02/03/15 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

4

& Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341, 350 (1989). Plaintiff’s allegations in the 

SAC – namely, that he is employed by Home Depot and that he and putative class members were 

subjected to its corporate policies regarding the payment of wages– permit the reasonable

inference that Home Depot “ha[d] the right to control the manner and means” of the work of 

Plaintiff and the putative class. 

Finally, the Court notes that all three of these parties were named in Plaintiffs’ initial 

complaint, and that Plaintiffs agreed to file the FAC and remove two of those parties based on 

representations made by AHS that it had assumed all the liabilities of MeasureComp. Now, it 

appears that the extent of AHS’ liability is disputed. Given that all of these parties were named in 

the initial complaint, and leave to amend is to be applied with extreme liberality, amendment is 

proper. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED;

2) Plaintiff shall file the SAC on the docket as a separate entry within five days of this 

order;

3) The Clerk of the Court is direct to add the new parties named in the SAC to the 

docket; 

4) Defendants’ Answers are due 21 days after the filing of the SAC;

5) The scheduling order issued on January 20, 2015 (Doc. 25), will remain in effect. A 

status conference will be held on April 2, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. before the undersigned to 

discuss whether the scheduling order will need further modification given the added 

parties and claims alleged in the SAC. Seven (7) days prior to the status conference, 

the parties shall file a joint status report indicating whether the dates in the existing 

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 28 Filed 02/03/15 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

scheduling order need to be modified. If so, the parties shall include proposed dates 

for any requested modification. The report shall also include any other issues the 

parties believe are significant given the recent amendment to the pleadings; and

6) The parties are strongly encouraged to work together and exchange the necessary 

discovery to enable Plaintiffs to identify the appropriate parties in this action. Once 

the information is obtained, Plaintiffs shall file the necessary dismissal documents 

forthwith if it is determined that Home Depot or MeasureComp are not proper 

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00273-BAM Document 28 Filed 02/03/15 Page 5 of 5