Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03442/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03442-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GONZALEZ MANRIQUEZ, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

TODD GOODRUM dba TODD GOODRUM

CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-3442 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO AMEND

THE COMPLAINT,

TRANSFER VENUE

AND EXTEND TIME

TO SERVE

DEFENDANT GOODRUM

Plaintiffs Jose Gonzalez Manriquez, Aldo Bacenas, Javier

Vallejo Renteria, Amador Martinez Gonzalez, Salvador Gomez

Renteria, Fernando Cabrea Guzman, Eliazarb Rojas Blancas, Alejandro

Sanchez Maldonado, Eddy Saul Ramos and Juan Carrillo move to amend

their complaint, transfer venue and to extend time to serve

Defendant Todd Goodrum. No Defendant has answered the complaint or

filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. The matter was

submitted on the papers. Having considered all of the papers filed

by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are Spanish-speaking day laborers living in Alameda

and Contra Costa Counties who were hired to work on a new home

Case 4:07-cv-03442-CW Document 22 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

being built in Vallejo, California for Byron and Judith Gregory. 

Plaintiffs allege that they worked on the house in August and

September, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a complaint on June 29, 2007,

naming Todd Goldrum dba Todd Goldrum Construction, Oscar Rodriguez

dba Todd Goldrum Construction, Deron Gregory, Judith Gregory, Jela

Investments Inc. dba TPB Signature Homes, Thomas Bangs and a number

of Doe Defendants. Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that Jela

subcontracted with Todd Goldrum Construction to build the Gregorys'

house and that Todd Goldrum Construction in turn hired Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs allege claims under California and federal law based on

Defendants' failure to pay them overtime wages, failure to provide

meal and rest periods and for other unpaid wages.

On August 31, 2007, after discovering the correct spelling of

the subcontractor's name, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint

changing the spelling of "Todd Goldrum" to "Todd Goodrum." 

Plaintiffs provide evidence that they have attempted to serve

Goodrum at the address listed on the Contractors State License

Board website for Goodrum Builders but were not able to locate him. 

Plaintiffs also allege that they now know that Goodrum Builders is

run by Todd Goodrum and John Goodrum and that the work on the

Gregory home was performed under a $10,000 surety bond issued by

Surety Pacific in Van Nuys, California. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave of the

court allowing a party to amend its pleading "shall be freely given

when justice so requires." Leave to amend lies within the sound

discretion of the trial court, which discretion "must be guided by

Case 4:07-cv-03442-CW Document 22 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the underlying purpose of Rule 15--to facilitate decisions on the

merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." United

States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations

omitted). Thus, Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to

pleadings should be applied with "extreme liberality." Id.; DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)

(citations omitted).

The Supreme Court has identified four factors relevant to

whether a motion for leave to amend should be denied: undue delay,

bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice

to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

The Ninth Circuit holds that these factors are not of equal weight,

and that delay alone is an insufficient ground for denying leave to

amend. Webb, 655 F.2d at 980. Rather, the court should consider

whether the proposed amendment would cause the opposing party undue

prejudice, is sought in bad faith, or constitutes an exercise in

futility. Id. (citing Acri v. International Ass'n of Machinists &

Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

479 U.S. 816 (1986); United States v. City of Twin Falls, 806 F.2d

862, 876 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 914 (1987); Howey

v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 1973); KlamathLake Pharm. v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 822 (1983)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs now seek leave to make several modifications to

their complaint and lawsuit. Each of those changes is discussed

separately below. 

Case 4:07-cv-03442-CW Document 22 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

I. Dismiss claims against Byron and Judith Gregory

Plaintiffs state that they seek to dismiss Byron and Judith

Gregory as "Defendant[s] to the Complaint with prejudice." Motion

at 3. Plaintiffs have not filed any evidence that they have served

the Gregorys. However, the Gregorys filed with the Court a copy of

a letter that they sent on November 21, 2007 to Plaintiffs'

counsel. Docket No. 11. In that letter, the Gregorys point out

that they paid their contractor in full and ask that they be

dropped as Defendants from the suit. In addition, Plaintiffs

submit a letter dated November 27, 2007 from an attorney confirming

that Plaintiffs granted Bangs, Jela and the Gregorys a twenty-day

extension to respond to the complaint. Dal Bon Decl., Ex. 2. 

According to the letter, the deadline for those Defendants to

respond was December 17, 2007. No Defendant has answered the

complaint or moved to dismiss. 

The Court grants Plaintiffs' request to dismiss with prejudice

their claims against the Gregorys. 

II. Dismiss claims against Rodriguez

Plaintiffs also seek to dismiss their claims against Oscar

Rodriguez. Plaintiffs state that they seek this dismissal pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which provides, "If a

defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is

filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the

plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." 

More than 120 days have passed since Plaintiffs filed their amended

complaint. Plaintiffs' claims against Rodriguez are dismissed

Case 4:07-cv-03442-CW Document 22 Filed 04/08/08 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

without prejudice. 

III. Add Defendants to complaint

Plaintiffs next seek to add claims John Goodrum, Goodrum

Builders and Surety Pacific Insurance Company as Defendants. 

Plaintiffs argue that this proposed amendment is not made in bad

faith, will not prejudice the proposed additional defendants and is

not futile. As Plaintiffs note, the statute of limitations has not

run on any of their claims. Therefore, they could file their

claims against these Defendants in a separate lawsuit if the

amendment is not permitted. In addition, discovery has not yet

begun in this case. Plaintiffs' counsel states that he is

responsible for any delay in moving to add these Defendants. The

Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to add claims against John Goodrum,

Goodrum Builders and Surety Pacific Insurance Company as

Defendants.

IV. Extension of time to serve Todd Goodrum

Plaintiffs next seek additional time to serve their complaint

on Defendant Todd Goodrum. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(m), "if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure [to comply

with the 120 day deadline to serve defendants], the court must

extend the time for service for an appropriate period." Plaintiffs

submit the declaration of the certified process server who

attempted to serve the complaint on Todd Goodrum prior to the

expiration of the 120 days. Moreover, as stated above, the statute

of limitations has not run on Plaintiffs' claims. Thus, even if

Plaintiffs were not permitted the extension, they would be able to

re-file their claims and Goodrum cannot claim that he would be

Case 4:07-cv-03442-CW Document 22 Filed 04/08/08 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

prejudiced by the extension. The Court grants Plaintiffs an

additional sixty days to serve their complaint on Todd Goodrum. 

V. Service of other Defendants

Plaintiffs have not filed proof that they have served Jela

Investments Inc. or Thomas Bangs, the remaining Defendants named in

the first amended complaint. Although more than 120 days have

passed since the complaint was filed, Plaintiffs have not moved to

extend time for service with respect to those Defendants. Within

seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall file either

proof that they have served Jela and Bangs or a motion showing that

they have good cause for failing to do so. If Plaintiffs do

neither, the Court will dismiss their claims against Jela and Bangs

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

VI. Transfer of venue

Finally Plaintiffs seek to transfer their case to the Eastern

District of California. As Plaintiffs note, this case should have

been brought in the Eastern District, where all of the Defendants

reside and where the work took place. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. If a

case is filed in an improper district, the district in which it is

filed “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,

transfer such case to any district or division in which it could

have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Plaintiffs argue, and

the Court agrees, that transfer rather than dismissal would best

serve the interests of justice because Plaintiffs would re-file the

same action in the Eastern District if this case is dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion

Case 4:07-cv-03442-CW Document 22 Filed 04/08/08 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

(Docket No. 17). Plaintiffs may file their amended complaint

within seven days of the date of this order. Thereafter, the case

shall be transferred to the Eastern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/8/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03442-CW Document 22 Filed 04/08/08 Page 7 of 7