Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03164/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03164-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ERIC BALLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUMENIS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03164-HRL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT1

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Shortly after the complaint was filed, the parties stipulated to conditional certification of a 

collective class and distribution of notice. Plaintiffs now move for leave to amend their complaint 

to replace the previously named plaintiff, Eric Ballard,2 with opt-in plaintiff Raul Cordero and to 

add Cordero’s New York state labor law claims. Defendant Lumenis, Inc. (Lumenis) opposes the 

motion on the ground that this case is not an appropriate collective action.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for leave to amend and 

provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV.

P.15(a)(2). The decision whether to grant leave to amend is within the discretion of the trial court. 

See Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave need not be granted, however, 

 

1

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

2 Ballard, along with several other collective members, accepted defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 

offers of judgment.

Case 5:15-cv-03164-HRL Document 60 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

where the amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, 

constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962). “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 

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

This court finds no undue prejudice, bad faith, or undue delay. Although Lumenis 

contends that the amendment will be futile, defendant essentially is asking this court to make 

factual findings re decertification that cannot appropriately be made on the record presented. If 

Lumenis believes that decertification is warranted, then it should bring a proper motion at the 

appropriate time.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted. The amended complaint

shall forthwith be filed as a separate ECF docket entry.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03164-HRL Document 60 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-03164-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Amy Sharyl Williams awilliams@cdflaborlaw.com

Ashley Halberda ahalberda@cdflaborlaw.com, manderson@cdflaborlaw.com

Daniel S Brome dbrome@nka.com, assistant@nka.com

Matthew C Helland helland@nka.com, assistant@nka.com

Todd Robin Wulffson TWulffson@CDFLaborLaw.com, jfelde@cdflaborlaw.com

Case 5:15-cv-03164-HRL Document 60 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 3