Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00060-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

ANTOINETTE CHANDLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14CV0060 BEN (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Docket No. 21]

vs.

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH

BARNEY, LLC,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Antoinette Chandler moves for leave to file a first amended complaint

to add Morgan Stanley Investment Management (“MSIM”) as a defendant. (Docket

No. 21.) Defendant Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (“MSSB”) opposes the

motion. (Docket No. 23.) Because Plaintiff’s request is not untimely, unduly

prejudicial to MSSB, or futile, the motion is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this action against her former employer, MSSB. (Notice of

Removal, Ex. A (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 2, 8.) She claims that under the terms of both oral and

written contracts she was entitled to commissions for investment referrals made to

MSIM and MSSB has failed to pay those commissions. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-14)

This action was filed in San Diego Superior Court on December 13, 2013. 

(Compl.) MSSB filed an Answer on January 7, 2014. (Notice of Removal, Ex. C.) 

MSSB removed the action to this Court on January 8, 2014. (Notice of Removal.) On

- 1 - 14cv0060

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 25 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 4
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

July 2, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a brief extension of the scheduling order’s deadline to

file a motion to amend. (Docket No. 18.)

DISCUSSION

Leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) should be “freely give[n] . . . when justice

so requires.” The Ninth Circuit “has noted on several occasions . . . that the Supreme

1

Court has instructed the lower federal courts to heed carefully the command of Rule

15(a), . . . by freely granting leave to amend when justice so requires.” DCD

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). “This policy is ‘to be

applied with extreme liberality.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d

1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244

F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Courts consider “undue delay, bad faith, dilatorymotive, repeated failure to cure

deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and

futility ofthe proposed amendment” in deciding whether justice requires granting leave

to amend under Rule 15. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538

(9th Cir. 1989) (citing Foman v. Davis, 370 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Although each

factor may warrant consideration, “prejudice to the opposing party . . . carries the

greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. MSSB argues that it will be

prejudiced by amendment, that Plaintiff has engaged in undue delay, and that

amendment is futile. The Court disagrees. 

2

///

///

Plaintiff’s motion is subject to Rule 15(a), rather than Federal Rule of Civil

1

Procedure 16, because the motion was filed in compliance with the Court’s scheduling

order. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir.

2006) (finding that filing “a motion for leave to amend within the deadline set by the

district court . . . is subject to the limited constraints placed on motions for leave to

amend under Rule 15(a)” rather than the Rule 16 standard). 

Although the Court only analyzes the factors challenged by MSSB, the Court

2

notes that the other factors weigh in favor of granting leave to amend. There are no

allegations that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith or with dilatory motive, and this is

Plaintiff’s first attempt to amend her Complaint.

- 2 - 14cv0060

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 25 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 4
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

MSSB has not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s amendment is unduly prejudicial to

MSSB. MSSB’s only claimof prejudice is based on potential delays in the progression

of the case. MSSB argues the addition of MSIM might require the extension of

discovery deadlines that could delay resolution of Plaintiff’s claims against MSSB. 

However, the deadline to complete discovery is not until October 14, 2014. Assuming

an extension is necessary, MSSB has not shown that it would be lengthy enough to

unduly prejudice MSSB. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d

1074, 1079 (9thCir. 1990) (noting an almost two-year delay in seeking leave to amend,

alone, would not be enough to deny leave). MSSB has not met its burden in showing

prejudice. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187 (“The party opposing amendment bears

the burden of showing prejudice.”). 

Plaintiff has not engaged in undue delay. In June, Plaintiff discovered MSSB

was blaming MSIM for its failure to payPlaintiff’s commissions. Deposition testimony

taken in late June from MSIM employees suggested that MSIM did not pay MSSB

Plaintiff’s commissions. Plaintiff promptly sought a brief extension of the deadline to

file a motion for leave to amend and filed the instant motion within a few days of the

order modifying the scheduling order. 

Plaintiff’s amendment is also not futile. MSSB argues Plaintiff’s addition of

MSIM is futile because the claims against MSIM are time-barred and may be invalid

for failing to comply with the statute of frauds. However, it is not obvious that the

allegations of the proposed amended complaint will be time-barred, or clear that the

contracts are invalid under the statute of frauds. 

3

///

///

///

The Court’s conclusion that the amendment is not clearly futile does not

3

preclude an appropriate challenge to the amended pleading under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12. Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 467 (2000) (noting a newly

added defendant’s right to respond to an amended complaint under FED.R.CIV. P. 12). 

- 3 - 14cv0060

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 25 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file a First

Amended Complaint within five days of the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv0060

Case 3:14-cv-00060-BEN-RBB Document 25 Filed 08/04/14 Page 4 of 4