Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILIANA SOLIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE REGIS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03039 CRB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Nearly two years ago plaintiff filed this California Labor Code putative class action in

state court on behalf of the employees of various hair salons owned and managed by

defendant The Regis Corporation. Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court pursuant to

the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2). 

The Third Amended Complaint contains three Causes of Action. Two relate to the socalled “Matrix” claim, that is, a claim that defendant Supercuts failed to properly calculate

and pay overtime wages. The third seeks recovery against both Regis Corporation and

defendant Supercuts under Labor Code section 212 for issuance of payroll checks drawn on

an out-of-state bank. By Memorandum and Order filed October 12, 2006, the Court granted

plaintiff’s motion for class certification of the payroll checks class; however, the Court

denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification of the Matrix claims on the ground that

plaintiff, Liliana Solis, is not an adequate and typical class representative. 

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 227 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add Doris Miller as a plaintiff to serve as a representative for

the Matrix class. Plaintiff also seeks to add a claim under Business & Professions Code

section 17200 in connection with the payroll check claim, and to add a claim under Labor

Code section 204 for failure to pay for all wages earned during the proper pay period. After

considering the papers filed by the parties, and the record in this action, the Court concludes

that oral argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS in part and DENIES

in part plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

A party may amend its complaint once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend the party’s pleading only by

leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when

justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a). Leave to amend should be “freely granted”

unless the amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith,

creates undue delay or is futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The court

should consider prejudice to the opposing party as the most important factor. See Jackson v.

Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1989).

Justice requires that plaintiff be given leave to add Doris Miller as a plaintiff. At the

class certification hearing plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court and defendants that he had

identified a plaintiff who is adequate to represent the Matrix class; thus, the defense had

notice that plaintiff is not abandoning her Matrix claims. The Court also finds that plaintiff

did not unduly delay bringing her motion to amend in light of the undisputed evidence that

the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations, even if such negotiations did not include

the Matrix claims. Moreover, defendant did not bring a motion for summary judgment or to

dismiss the Matrix claims in the intervening months and thus is not unduly prejudiced by the

substitution. The Court will not allow the addition of the new plaintiff to delay resolution of

this action; it will go to trial next year.

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 227 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendant’s reliance on Alvarez v. May Department Stores Company, 143

Cal.App.4th 1223 (2006) is unavailing. There a trial court found that the class was not

certifiable on its merits; as a result, the appellate court held that a different plaintiff was

barred by res judicata from seeking certification of a class. The court did not hold that once a

court finds a plaintiff cannot adequately represent a class, the plaintiff may not seek to

substitute an adequate representative.

Plaintiff did unduly delay in seeking to add an out-of-state payroll check section

17200 claim and a claim under Labor Code section 204. Plaintiff contends that her delay in

adding the section 17200 claim was the “result of new rulings that were not available when

plaintiff filed her original complaint or her amendments.” Motion at 5. In particular, she

cites the district court’s September 2006 decision in Fleming v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 06-

03409 (N.D. Cal.). In refusing to dismiss the section 17200 out-of-state payroll check claim,

the district court relied on a California Supreme Court decision from 2000, Cortez v.

Purcolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 178-79 (2000). Fleming is not a

change in the law; it simply applied well-established law and is not an excuse for plaintiff’s

inordinate delay. In addition, plaintiff brought the Fleming court’s decision to this Court’s

attention on September 20, 2006, well before the commencement of any settlement

negotiations; plaintiff offers no explanation for her failure to wait more than seven months to

file a motion to add a section 17200/section 212 claim. Moreover, allowing this late

amendment would prejudice defendants by greatly expanding the class period beyond what

was previously alleged in plaintiff’s various complaints.

Plaintiff also offers no excuse for her nearly two-year delay in seeking to add a claim

under section 204. To allow this new cause of action at this late date would prejudice

defendants who have proceeded under the assumption that the claims stated are the claims

made. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to add Doris Miller as a plaintiff is GRANTED. In all other

respects plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. The Court shall hold a further

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 227 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

G:\CRBALL\2005\3039\orderrefourthamendedcomplaint.wpd 4

case management conference on June 15, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. The parties shall submit a joint

case management conference statement which includes a schedule for resolution of this

matter, including a date for hearing plaintiff’s class certification motion, a summary

judgment hearing date, and a trial date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 227 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 4