Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07232/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LINDA BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

T-MOBILE US, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-07232-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

TERMINATING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Re: ECF 132]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint 

(“Motion”). Motion, ECF 132. Defendants oppose. Opp’n, ECF 137. Pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds Plaintiffs’ Motion suitable for submission without oral argument. For 

the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this class and collective action against Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc. and 

Amazon.com, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging various claims including violations of the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623, and California law. Plaintiffs’ 

original complaint was filed on December 20, 2017. Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiffs filed a first 

amended complaint (“FAC”) on May 29, 2018, and a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on 

August 20, 2018. See FAC, ECF 56; SAC, ECF 68. On October 4, 2018, the Court granted the 

parties stipulation regarding filing of a third amended complaint (“TAC”), see ECF 71, which 

Plaintiffs filed the same day, see TAC, ECF 72. 

Amazon (joined by T-Mobile) subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ TAC and 

a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ class and collective allegations. See ECF 73; ECF 74. Plaintiffs’ 

TAC names two additional defendants, Cox Communications, Inc., and Cox Media Group, LLC 

Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 139 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(together, “Cox”), who were dismissed from this action without prejudice on May 9, 2019, see

ECF 133. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and motion to strike on 

April 17, 2019 (“the Hearing”). Based on discussion at the Hearing, the Court permitted Plaintiffs 

to file the instant motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. See ECF 126. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.”). A “good cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party.” 

Yeager v. Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Courts may consider any resulting 

prejudice to the opposing party, but “the focus of the [Rule 16(b)] inquiry is upon the moving 

party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) aff’d 

sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Meanwhile, Rule 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend the 

pleadings] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, such leave “is not to be 

granted automatically.” In re W. States, 715 F.3d at 738 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Instead, the court should consider the following factors in determining whether to grant leave to 

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

amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move under Rule 16(b) to modify the scheduling order and move under 

Rule 15(a)(2) for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (“4AC”). See Motion at 1. Plaintiffs 

additionally “request that the Court deny without prejudice the pending motions to dismiss and 

strike.” Id. at 10. The Court addresses Rule 16(b) and Rule 15(a) in turn. 

A. Good Cause Exists under Rule 16(b)

Plaintiffs seek to add named Plaintiff and proposed Collective and Class Representative 

Richard Haynie, a California resident who was allegedly denied jobs ads by Defendants. See

Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 139 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion at 1. Plaintiffs previously included a different “California plaintiff,” Ms. Renia Hudson. 

See SAC ¶¶ 45–46, ECF 68. However, after Plaintiffs’ deadline to amend, “Defendants informed 

Plaintiffs of [] alleged inaccuracies in Hudson’s allegations.” See Motion at 6; see also RomerFriedman Decl. ¶¶ 2–4, ECF 132-1. The parties ultimately stipulated to remove Hudson’s 

allegations from the case. See ECF 70 ¶ 2. Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists to modify the 

scheduling order because “Plaintiffs were unaware of the inaccurate information on Hudson at the 

time of the scheduling order” and because “at that time the Court had not raised its concern about 

personal jurisdiction in the absence of a worker plaintiff from California.” See Motion at 6. 

Defendants counter that Plaintiffs lacked diligence because “Plaintiffs knew or should have known 

when they filed suit that their case could not proceed here without a California plaintiff.” See

Opp’n at 1; see also Opp’n at 4–7. Given the timing and circumstances of Ms. Hudson being 

dropped from the case and the Court’s first opportunity to discuss its views with the parties at the 

April 17, 2019 hearing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs acted with diligence and did not unduly 

delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ theory 

of liability based on Facebook’s allegedly discriminatory ad-delivery algorithm is not newly 

asserted, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, see Opp’n at 7–8. 

The Court also finds that the prejudice to Defendants in allowing amendment is slight. 

The trial date in this case is set for September 27, 2021. The last day to hear dispositive motions 

is April 15, 2021. Therefore, Defendants have more than adequate time to brief and argue a 

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 4AC and to conduct further discovery, if necessary. In addition, 

Plaintiffs’ 4AC would remove the proposed defendant class and narrow certain other allegations. 

See Motion at 1; see generally Proposed 4AC, Ex. A to Motion, ECF 132-2. 

For these reasons, the Court finds that good cause exists under Rule 16(b). 

B. Rule 15(a) is Satisfied 

Plaintiffs have also satisfied the requirements of Rule 15(a). As noted above, a court 

generally will grant leave to amend “unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing 

party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607. Not all 

factors carry equal weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 

Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 139 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2003). Prejudice to the opposing party must be given the greatest weight. Id. Absent prejudice, 

or a strong showing of bad faith, undue delay, or futility of amendment, there exists a presumption 

under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Id. (citation omitted). 

As discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ filing of a 4AC at this point in the 

litigation, over two years before trial, does not prejudice Defendants. The Court has also 

considered the remaining factors under Rule 15 and finds that the presumption in favor of granting 

leave to amend under Rule 15 applies. 

IV. ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended 

Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file the 4AC as a separate docket entry no later than 

June 6, 2019. 

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss at ECF 73 and motion to strike at ECF 74 are no longer

directed to the operative complaint and are hereby TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to 

any of the issues raised. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 139 Filed 06/04/19 Page 4 of 4