Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04427/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04427-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-07-04427 RMW

TSF

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed: 7/25/2008 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EISHA UR-RAHMAN

Plaintiff,

v.

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. C-07-04427 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Re Docket Nos. 17, 18]

Plaintiff Eisha Ur-Rahman moves for leave to submit a first amended complaint. Defendant

RadioShack Corp. opposes the request. The court has read the moving and responding papers and

considered the arguments of counsel. For the following reasons, the court grants the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2007, Ms. Ur-Rahman filed a complaint with the California Department of

Fair Employment and Housing. See Decl. of Shanna McDaniel, Ex. A. In her complaint, Ms. UrRahman alleged that her employer, RadioShack, laid her off and denied her pregnancy

accommodation because "[she] took FMLA and have 2 small children." Id. On April 27, 2007, the

Department closed Ms. Ur-Rahman's file and granted her a right-to-sue letter. Id. Ms. Ur-Rahman's

lawyer then filed the current complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court on May 18, 2007,

alleging that Ms. Ur-Rahman had been unfairly terminated based on her gender and because

Case 5:07-cv-04427-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/25/08 Page 1 of 6
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-07-04427 RMW

TSF 2

RadioShack preferred to employ men. See id., ¶¶ 6-7. RadioShack removed the case to this court

on August 27, 2007. See Docket No. 1.

The court held its initial case management conference on January 25, 2008. In preparation,

the parties filed a joint case management conference statement, which asserted that "Plaintiff does

not expect to amend her complaint at this time." See Docket No. 10, at 2 (Jan. 18, 2008).

Less than a month later, Ms. Ur-Rahman's counsel began seeking to amend the complaint. 

On February 21, 2008, he mailed a letter to opposing counsel requesting that the parties stipulate to

allow him to assert additional retaliation claims based on Ms. Ur-Rahman's leave of absence from

work under the Family and Medical Leave Act. See Reply Decl. of Peter Lamberto, Ex. B. Ms. UrRahman's counsel informed RadioShack regarding his desire to amend the pleadings prior to any

depositions, and he offered to permit additional written discovery. Id. RadioShack did not respond

to the request. Id. ¶ 3.

On April 18, 2008, Ms. Ur-Rahman's counsel filed the pending motion for leave to amend

the complaint. See Docket No. 15. By this point, the parties had exchanged written discovery and

appear to have conducted two depositions. See McDaniel Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8, 9.

II. ANALYSIS

"[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the

court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). RadioShack failed to respond to Ms. Ur-Rahman's request

for consent and now opposes her request for leave from the court. Rule 15 instructs the court to

"freely give leave when justice so requires." Id. Various factors may support denying leave to

amend, but prejudice to the defendant is the most important consideration. Eminence Capital, LLC

v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); see also Foman v. Davis, 371

U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (suggesting that courts consider any "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, futility of

amendment, etc."). To be clear, Rule 15 requires the court to give leave "with extreme liberality." 

Id.

Case 5:07-cv-04427-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/25/08 Page 2 of 6
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-07-04427 RMW

TSF 3

Despite this "extreme liberality" standard, RadioShack opposes Ms. Ur-Rahman's motion. 

RadioShack argues that she has unduly delayed in seeking to amend her complaint, and that

permitting amendment after this delay will substantially prejudice RadioShack. RadioShack begins

by pointing out that Ms. Ur-Rahman knew she had taken medical leave before she was laid off and

even mentioned it as what she believed caused her termination in her complaint with the Department

of Fair Employment and Housing. Despite this knowledge, it took her almost a year to recognize

that she had not alleged a claim for wrongful termination based on her leave.

RadioShack relies on various Ninth Circuit decisions affirming the denial of leave to amend

where a party was aware of the need to amend its claims for more than eight months. 

AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951-54 (9th Cir. 2006); Texaco, Inc.

v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798-99 (9th Cir. 1991). The court does not find those cases persuasive

because the facts of AmerisourceBergen and Texaco differ markedly from Ms. Ur-Rahman's case. 

In Texaco, the movant had waited "eight months after the district court granted summary judgment

against it, and nearly two years after filing the initial complaint." 939 F.3d at 798-99. In this case,

the complaint has been on file for slightly more than a year and the court has not made any

substantive rulings. In AmerisourceBergen, the court determined that the movant had known of the

requisite facts for over 15 months and done nothing. 464 F.3d at 953. Here, only ten months had

passed when Ms. Ur-Rahman began to seek leave to amend her complaint. The AmerisourceBergen

case involved allegations of new facts toward the end of a lawsuit, and exploring new facts would

have prejudiced the defendants. See id. at 953-54. As explained below, that is not the case here. 

While Ms. Ur-Rahman could have alleged her claims in her first complaint, the court does not

believe that her delay in doing so is "undue."

RadioShack also argues that it will be unfairly prejudiced if Ms. Ur-Rahman is allowed to

amend her complaint because it may have to conduct additional discovery. The court has no

sympathy for this argument. Prior to taking any depositions, RadioShack knew Ms. Ur-Rahman

sought to amend her complaint and refused to respond to her request. Nevertheless, RadioShack

could have explored these topics in the depositions. RadioShack also complains that it "has

Case 5:07-cv-04427-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/25/08 Page 3 of 6
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-07-04427 RMW

TSF 4

exhausted court imposed limits on written discovery." This is irrelevant because Ms. Ur-Rahman

offered to permit additional discovery in her initial request to RadioShack. Moreover, it is within

the court's power to permit additional discovery.

In passing, RadioShack suggests that allowing amendment would be "futile," but also

suggests that the motion is "an attempt to avoid RadioShack's motion for summary judgment." First,

these two arguments are irreconcilable. If the amendment were futile, RadioShack could still obtain

summary judgment. If Ms. Ur-Rahman's amendment truly would avoid summary judgment, it

cannot be said that the amendment would be "futile." Second, RadioShack has not yet filed a

motion for summary judgment. It is difficult to conceive how Ms. Ur-Rahman could "avoid"

something that does not yet exist.

Based on Ms. Ur-Rahman's delay in asserting her new claim, the court cannot conclude that

RadioShack's refusal to consent to her request to amend her complaint was objectively unreasonable. 

Nonetheless, this is a dispute that did not have to happen, and any prejudice that has redounded to

RadioShack is of its own making.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 5:07-cv-04427-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/25/08 Page 4 of 6
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-07-04427 RMW

TSF 5

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Ms. Ur-Rahman's motion to file her first amended

complaint. To accommodate the amended complaint, the court alters the case management schedule

as follows:

Event: Old deadline: New deadline:

Close of discovery. August 1, 2008 September 5, 2008

Expert disclosures. August 1, 2008 September 5, 2008

Rebuttal expert disclosures. August 8, 2008 September 12, 2008

Close of expert discovery. August 29, 2008 October 3, 2008

Dispositive motion hearing. Motions must be

noticed at least 35 days before the hearing.

October 10, 2008 November 21, 2008

Joint pre-trial conference statement. November 14, 2008 January 2, 2009

Pre-trial conference. November 20, 2008 January 8, 2009

Trial. December 8, 2008 January 26, 2008

DATED: 7/25/2008 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04427-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/25/08 Page 5 of 6
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-07-04427 RMW

TSF 6

Notice of this document has been e-mailed to:

Counsel for Eisha Ur-Rahman:

Peter Nicholas Lamberto peterl@lambertokreger.com

Counsel for RadioShack Corporation:

Shanna Michelle McDaniel shanna@bashamparker.com

Gary R. Basham gary@bashamparker.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 7/25/2008 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-04427-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/25/08 Page 6 of 6