Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039-6/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed this California Labor Code putative class action in state court on behalf

of the employees of various hair salons purportedly 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 Second Amended Complaint included eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay

overtime in violation of the California Labor Code; (2) failure to provide rest periods in

violation of Labor Code section 226.7; (3) failure to provide meal periods in violation of

California Labor Code section 226.7; (4) a claim pursuant to Section 12 of the Industrial

Wage Commission Order 9; (5) issuing out-of-state paychecks in violation of Labor Code

section 212; (6) waiting penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 203; (7) Labor Code

Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; and (8) Business and Professions Code section

17200.

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 73 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 that plaintiff has conducted some discovery, she seeks to file a Third Amended

Complaint. She characterizes her amendments as follows: (1) adding Supercuts Corporate

Shops, Inc. as a defendant; (2) excluding certain entities that defense counsel represents do

not perform services in California; (3) including defendant Regis Corporation as a violator of

Labor Code section 212; (4) adding a claim for violation of Labor Code section 226; and (5)

limiting the overtime claim to Supercuts employees. Although not stated by plaintiff in her

motion, her Third Amended Complaint also eliminates her rest and meal period claims.

Defendants do not object to plaintiff’s proposed amendments with two exceptions. 

First, they note that as defendant Regis was a defendant to the Labor Code section 212 claim

in the Second Amended Complaint, they do not understand how the Third Amended

Complaint changes anything. Plaintiff, unfortunately, did not file a reply to defendants’

opposition so the Court is left to surmise what plaintiff intends. In any event, the allegations

of plaintiff’s section 212 claim for relief in the Third Amended Complaint are different from

those in the Second Amended Complaint, and defendants have not raised any objections to

the new allegations, so the new allegations shall be allowed.

Defendants do object to plaintiff’s proposed addition of a claim for intentional failure

to disclose piece rates in violation of Labor Code section 226 on the ground that such claim

is futile. Defendants have not proved as a matter of law that the proposed claim is

substantively flawed; they are essentially asking the Court to make a summary judgment

ruling on a motion to amend. Nor have defendants shown that the claim is barred by the

statute of limitations as a matter of law. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED without prejudice to

defendants filing a motion to dismiss, provided defendants can file such a motion consistent

with the rules governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Plaintiff shall file her Third Amended

Complaint within five days of the filing of this Order. The Complaint shall identify the

specific defendant(s) sued on each cause of action. For example, plaintiff states that Regis

is a defendant on the Labor Code section 212 claim only (Third Cause of Action); the Third

Amended Complaint, however, does not make this distinction.

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 73 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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\orderrethirdamendedcomplaint.wpd 3

In addition, plaintiff shall make the Third Amended Complaint consistent with her

arguments in connection with summary judgment. For example, her summary judgment

opposition suggests she is seeking section 212 penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private

Attorneys General Act of 2004; yet, her proposed Third Amended Complaint limits the

Private Attorneys General Act cause of action to overtime penalties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 73 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 3