Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03618/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03618-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:151 Railway Labor 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS RACHFORD, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 03-3618 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED

AIR LINE PILOT ASSOCIATION, COMPLAINT

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint came on for hearing on

December 14, 2005. Plaintiffs appeared by their counsel G. Stephen Long, Marty Harper,

and Andrew S. Jacob. Defendant Air Line Pilots Association appeared by their counsel

Stephen P. Berzon, Jeffrey B. Demain, and Barbara Chisholm. Defendants CNF, Inc., Menlo

Worldwide Forwarding, Inc., and Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc., appeared by their counsel

Michael C. Hallerud. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their

arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion as follows

and for the reasons stated at the hearing.

The court finds that the motion is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),

not (as argued by defendants) by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Rule 15(a) requires

that leave to amend be granted “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to

amend is ordinarily granted unless the amendment is futile, would cause undue prejudice to

Case 4:03-cv-03618-PJH Document 101 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
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

the defendants, or is sought by the plaintiffs in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of the other 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). 

As stated at the hearing, the court finds that the Rule 15(a) factors favor granting leave

to amend. While defendant Air LIne Pilots Association (“ALPA”) made a strong argument that

granting leave to amend as to ALPA would be futile, the court finds that the issues raised in

connection with this argument would be better addressed in connection with a motion under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

Plaintiffs shall file the third amended complaint no later than Friday, December 16,

2005. ALPA shall file its motion to dismiss no later than Wednesday, December 28, 2005. 

Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to ALPA’s motion no later than Wednesday, January 11,

2006, and the reply shall be filed no later than Wedesday, January 18, 2006. 

The remaining defendants shall file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12

or 56 no later than Wednesday, January 25, 2006. The opposition shall be filed no later than

Wednesday, February 8, 2006, and the reply shall be filed no later than Wednesday, February

15, 2006. 

The court will decide both motions on the papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2005 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03618-PJH Document 101 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2