Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00064/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00064-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 - 07cv64

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GELASIO SALAZAR and SAAD

SHAMMAS, et al.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-0064-IEG-WMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND THE COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 48)

vs.

AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., CENDANT

CAR RENTAL GROUP, INC., CENDANT

CAR RENTAL OPERATIONS SUPPORT,

INC., and BUDGET RENT A CAR

SYSTEM, INC.,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended class

complaint. (Doc. No. 48.) Defendants have filed an opposition (Doc. No. 50) and plaintiffs have

filed a reply (Doc. No. 51). The Court finds the matter fully briefed and appropriate for

disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the

Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this purported class action to recover wages and benefits allegedly owed to

mechanics and “mechanics’ helpers” at the “Avis” and “Budget” brand car rental companies. 

Plaintiffs filed the class complaint in Superior Court in San Diego, California, and defendants

removed the action to federal court on January 10, 2007. (Doc. No. 1.) By order of May 8, 2007,

Case 3:07-cv-00064-IEG-WMC Document 65 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07cv64

the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Doc. No. 25.) Discovery began in June of 2007. 

The cut-off date for amending the pleadings was July 14, 2007. (Doc. No. 29.) The instant motion

was filed March 17, 2008. (Doc. No. 48.) Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due May 12,

2008 and the discovery cutoff date is July 31, 2008. (Doc. No. 43.)

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party may amend the party’s

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely

given when justice so requires.” Leave to amend is granted with “extreme liberality.” Morongo

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). “There are several

accepted reasons why leave to amend should not be granted, including the presence of bad faith on

the part of the [party seeking to amend], undue delay, prejudice to the [party opposing

amendment], futility of amendment, and that the party has previously amended the relevant

pleading.” Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. SciMed Life Sys., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1237, 1241

(N.D. Cal. 1997). 

Analysis

Proposed Amendment

Plaintiffs seek leave to file an amended complaint naming Avis Rent a Car System, LLC as

a defendant. Avis Rent a Car System, LLC is a subsidiary of Avis Budget Group, Inc., a named

defendant. Plaintiffs learned or could have learned this corporation existed from the documents

produced by defendants in August of 2007. Plaintiffs did not learn this entity employed Avis or

Budget brand mechanics and mechanics’ helpers until the February 8, 2008 deposition of

Christopher Rolletta, defendants’ person most knowledgeable regarding corporate structure.

Defendants’ Arguments Against Amendment

Defendants argue the Court should deny leave to amend because the deadline for amending

has passed and plaintiffs should have clarified their corporate structure earlier. Defendants do not

argue the motion is made in bad faith or that amendment is futile. Defendants argue plaintiffs

should have sought amendment in August of 2007, when they learned Avis Rent a Car System,

Case 3:07-cv-00064-IEG-WMC Document 65 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 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

1

See Williams Letter of December 21, 2008, Ex. 4 In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion (confirming

plaintiffs’ counsel’s understanding that defendants were not withholding responsive documents due

to objections based on which defendant entities employed class members).

2

First, plaintiffs applied to Magistrate Judge McCurine to compel production of the names of

mechanics and mechanics’ helpers employed by Avis Rent a Car System, LLC. (Plaintiffs’ Memo.

ISO Motion at 9.) Magistrate Judge McCurine denied this request because the entity is not a named

defendant. (Id.)

3

Plaintiffs filed a second reply brief in support of the motion on May 2, 2008. (Doc. No. 54.)

Defendants filed an additional reply brief on May 6, 2008. (Doc. No. 57.) Because plaintiffs’ original

motion established good cause, the Court does not consider plaintiffs’ newly discovered additional

evidence or defendants’ arguments against its relevance. 

- 3 - 07cv64

LLC, is a subsidiary of a named defendant. 

Ascertaining which entities employed potential class members took plaintiffs from August

of 2007 to February of 2008 because of the confusing corporate structure of the Avis and Budget

companies. As plaintiffs explain, some mechanics or mechanics’ helpers working under the Avis

or Budget brand have worked for both AB Car Rental Services, Inc., a named defendant, and Avis

Rent A Car System, LLC. Defendants have produced the names of these proposed class members. 

Other Avis or Budget brand mechanics and mechanics’ helpers in California worked only for Avis

Rent a Car System, LLC, and thus defendants have not yet produced their names.

Despite plaintiffs’ attempts to clarify which Avis and Budget entities employed mechanics

or mechanics’ helpers in California,1 plaintiffs never directly asked if Avis Rent a Car System,

LLC was an employing entity until the February 8, 2008 deposition. Defendants argue it was not

their duty to volunteer information about an entity not named in the complaint. Whether or not

defendants are responsible for this misunderstanding, plaintiffs diligently sought clarity and filed

this motion to amend the complaint promptly after they learned Avis Rent a Car System, LLC

employs mechanics and mechanics’ helpers.2 Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiffs did not

unduly delay and finds good cause to permit the proposed amendment.3

Defendants’ Additional Requests

Without citation to authority, defendants request plaintiffs pay any additional discovery

costs which may be incurred due to the amendment. It does not appear any completed depositions

will be re-opened. Because plaintiffs have acted in good faith, the Court finds it inappropriate to

require them to pay defendants’ costs. Cf. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d

Case 3:07-cv-00064-IEG-WMC Document 65 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 07cv64

708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to find prejudice unless the nonmoving party establishes the

party seeking amendment “delay[ed] assertion of [the amendment] for the purposes of forcing a

party to incur unnecessary expenses.”). 

Defendants also request a thirty-day continuance of upcoming deadlines and hearing dates. 

The Court refers the matter to Magistrate Judge McCurine to extend the deadlines by no more than

thirty days. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs leave to file the proposed

amended complaint within ten (10) days of the date this Order is stamped “filed.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00064-IEG-WMC Document 65 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 4