Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01495/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01495-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

- 1 -

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

RYAN GARY DENHAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, 

INC. d/b/a AMERICA’S ALLIANCE d/b/a 

AMERICA’S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR 

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 18cv1495-LAB (MDD)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT [Dkt. 78]

This is a labor dispute concerning whether the Defendants—a collection of garage 

door servicers—violated the Fair Labors Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay Plaintiffs 

overtime compensation. In addition to the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiffs have sued 

several individual officers of those entities, asserting that these Individual Defendants 

exercised supervisory control under the FLSA. The motion before the Court is whether 

Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint to add an additional Individual 

Defendant, Brandon Campbell. For the reasons below, that motion is DENIED.

In late January 2020, as discovery in this case was heating up, Plaintiffs served 

Defendants with a series of deposition notices indicating they intended to depose various 

individuals associated with the Corporate Defendants. Some of these individuals had been 

named as Individual Defendants in the case, but some had not. Defendants’ counsel 

responded to the notices with available dates for depositions and suggested that Plaintiffs 

“might want to depose Brandon Campbell and Jason Romasceski [sic] first as they are more 

Case 3:18-cv-01495-LAB-MDD Document 91 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

knowledgeable about the day-to-day operations of the business.” See Motion, Dkt. 78, 

Ex. A. Plaintiffs understood this communication to mean that Campbell, who was not yet 

named in the case, might be a potential defendant, and inquired whether Defendants would 

oppose Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file an amended complaint naming Campbell. 

Defendants, unsurprisingly, declined. This contested motion followed.

The key question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend 

their complaint to add Campbell as a defendant despite the fact that the Court-imposed 

amendment deadline of October 25, 2019 has long since passed. Plaintiffs argue that good 

cause exists to permit the amendment because the addition of Campbell is based on 

information produced after the amendment deadline passed. Defendants dispute this 

premise and argue that, in any event, amendment should be denied as futile.

Under Rule 16, a motion to amend filed after the amendment deadline may only be 

granted if the plaintiff demonstrates “good cause.” The focus of Rule 16’s “good cause” 

analysis is whether the moving party was diligent in seeking leave to amend. “If that party 

was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If a plaintiff succeeds in showing good cause under Rule 16, the 

court then turns to the traditional amendment analysis under Rule 15, which considers five 

factors: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of 

amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. Under 

Rule 15, leave to amend is “freely given when justice so requires,” and the policy favoring 

amendment is applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 

F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003).

It is unnecessary to reach the Rule 15 analysis here because Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated “good cause” under Rule 16. Plaintiffs argue that they were unable to add 

Campbell as a defendant before February 19, 2020—the date they filed this motion—

because they were unaware of Campbell’s involvement prior to Defendants’ counsel 

deposition-scheduling email, which suggested that Campbell was “knowledgeable about the 

day-to-day operations of the businesses.” Plaintiffs’ own motion belies this argument. As 

Case 3:18-cv-01495-LAB-MDD Document 91 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

early as November 18, 2019, Defendants produced in discovery an email in which Campbell 

apparently signed off on several commission payments to Plaintiffs. See Motion, Ex. B. 

Assuming, as Plaintiffs do, that this email suggests Campbell exercised supervisory control 

over Plaintiffs’ employment, this indicates Plaintiffs were on notice of Campbell’s potential 

liability three months before they first moved for leave to add him as a defendant. Especially 

given the age of this case, the Court cannot countenance such delays by finding good cause 

to permit amendment.

The Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs lack good cause to amend is bolstered by the 

substance of their proposed amendment. In their proposed amended complaint, the 

allegations against Campbell are no different in substance than the allegations against the 

existing Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs allege, for example, that Campbell is listed online 

as “CFO, RMO, CEO and President and/or Registered Agent of the . . . entity Defendants,” 

that he “is/was active in day-to-day operations of the company,” and that, upon information 

and belief, he “has/had the power to hire and fire employees; supervise and/or control the 

employees’ work schedules and/or work conditions of employment; determine the rate or 

method of pay; and control/maintain employees’ work records.” Proposed Complaint at 

¶¶ 76, 78, 79. As Defendants correctly point out, the only new fact Plaintiffs allege is that 

Campbell is listed online as corporate officer of the entity defendants, a fact Plaintiffs were 

aware of well before the amendment cutoff date. Because the proposed amendment is not 

based on new information obtained after the cutoff date, Plaintiff’s have not demonstrated 

that good cause exists to permit amendment.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is DENIED. Dkt. 78. 

This case was filed nearly two years ago and, largely due to the parties’ start-and-stop 

settlement discussions, it has not meaningfully advanced past basic discovery. It’s time to 

kick this case into a higher gear.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2020

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01495-LAB-MDD Document 91 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3