Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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 1

 Because the Court denied class certification for lack of typicality – rather than on the

basis of standing – AutoZone’s argument that Plaintiff’s off-the-clock claim must be dismissed

is inapposite. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELE MEDRANO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 AUTOZONE, INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04432 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michele Medrano’s motion for leave to file

a second amended complaint. On May 30, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class

certification as to an “off-the-clock” class on the ground that Medrano is an atypical class

representative.1

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiff now seeks to file an amended

complaint naming Gerardo Vargas as lead plaintiff for the off-the-clock class.

On February 20, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that May 31, 2006

would act as a deadline to join additional parties. Stipulations freely and voluntarily entered

into are binding and enforceable. See United States v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th

Cir. 1986). There is no evidence that Plaintiff entered into the February 20 stipulation

involuntarily and thus, the agreement must be regarded as essentially a stipulated scheduling

order. As a result, whether to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint turns not on the

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 273 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 2
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\4432\Order Denying Motion to Amend.wpd 2

liberal standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), but on the “good cause”

standard of Rule 16(b)(4). See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th

Cir. 2000).

 The good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Even under the liberal Rule 15 standard “late amendments to assert new theories are not

reviewed favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking

amendment since the inception of the cause of action.” Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists &

Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, Plaintiff knew that she

never closed an AutoZone store and therefore should have known that she could not

appropriately represent the off-the-clock class. Plaintiff should have amended her complaint

well before the class certification hearing to ensure that the class was represented by a typical

lead plaintiff. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to show

diligence in amending her complaint and there the inquiry must end. See Coleman, 232 F.3d

at 1295. Because Plaintiff has not proffered good cause for amendment of the scheduling

stipulation, the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 273 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 2