Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01688/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01688-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332lr Diversity - Labor

---

1

3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNICE RATCLIFFE, 

individually and on behalf of 

other members of the general 

public similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

APEX SYSTEMS, LLC., a 

Virginia limited liability company; 

and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 19). 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the

Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, assigned case number 37-2019-

00040686-CU-OE-CTL, against Defendant Apex Systems, LCC (Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2 at 

2).

On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer in the Superior Court of California 

for the County of San Diego. (Ex. B, ECF No. 1-3 at 2).

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 21 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD

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

On September 4, 2019, Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a), § 1332(c), § 1332(d), § 1441, § 1446, § 1453. (ECF No. 1). Defendant 

contends that this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (the 

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a). Id. at 1-2. 

On September 17, 2019, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 

(ECF No. 7). On November 13, 2019, this Court issued an Order granting Defendant’s 

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings without prejudice. (ECF No. 16). The Court stated 

that “[a]ny motion to file an amended complaint shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days 

from the date of service of this order.” Id. at 13. 

On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 19). On December 23, 2019, Defendant filed a statement of nonopposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 

20). 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given 

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme 

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th 

Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 

consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “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, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 

182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“Not all of the [Foman] 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, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of 

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 21 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD

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

showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists 

a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 

316 F.3d at 1052.

RULING OF THE COURT

Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20). Defendant states that it “does not oppose 

Ratcliffe’s Motion” “[u]nder the liberal standard for amending pleadings under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15.” Id. at 2. The Court finds that there has been no showing that 

any of the Foman factors warrants deviating from the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in 

favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff may file the First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of 

the entry of this Order.

Dated: January 13, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 21 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3