Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01814/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01814-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM CORDELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PICC LINES PLUS LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01814-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

COMPLAINT

Now before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff William Cordell (“Plaintiff”) for 

leave to file a second amended complaint. Docket No. 20. This matter came before the 

Court on August 29, 2016 for a hearing. The Court heard argument on this motion, as well 

as on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. 

BACKGROUND 

As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, the 

Court addresses each with brevity. Plaintiff alleges that he was employed as a nurse at Picc 

Lines Plus, LLC, from October 2014 to May 23 or 24, 2015. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 

7, 19. He claims he was terminated in retaliation for reporting misconduct within the 

company. Id. ¶¶ 15, 16, 19, 30-34. On April 8, 20156, Plaintiff filed the instant action, 

alleging Defendants Picc Lines Plus and Scottie Steinberg violated his rights by 

terminating him in violation of public policy, violating California’s whistleblower 

protection statute, defaming him, failing to pay him wages earned, failing to pay him 

wages owed within 30 days from last day of employment, failing to make meal and rest 

breaks available, failing to provide pay statements, and failing to maintain payroll records. 

Compl. ¶¶ 25-41. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding two 

Case 3:16-cv-01814-JD Document 33 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

claims: one for recovery of civil penalties under the Private Attorney Generals Act 

(PAGA), and one for failure to permit inspection of personnel records. FAC ¶¶ 47-54. 

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel gave written notice to the Labor and 

Workplace Development Agency (LWDA) and Defendants of allegedly violated 

provisions of the Labor Code concerning non-productive time and rest period wages. Mot. 

at 3; Royer Decl. ¶ 10. The LWDA did not provide notice within 33 calendar days that it 

intended to investigate the alleged violations. Royer Decl. ¶ 12. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for administrative relief in which he gave notice that he intended to file a 

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Id. ¶ 19. 

On July 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present motion along with a Proposed Second 

Amended Complaint (“PSAC”). He seeks leave to add a PAGA claim based on 

Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and other Picc Nurses for non-productive time and rest 

periods. Mot. at 5; PSAC ¶ 53. Defendants filed their Opposition to the motion on August 

2, 2016, and Plaintiff filed his Reply on August 12, 2016. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

After a party has amended a pleading once as a matter of course, it may only amend 

further after obtaining leave of the court, or by consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a). Rule 15 advises the court that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]his policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. 

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). 

“Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of 

‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing 

party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma 

Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Of these so-called Foman factors, 

prejudice is the weightiest and most important. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 

Case 3:16-cv-01814-JD Document 33 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the 

remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting 

leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

“The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD 

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Evaluation of the Foman

factors “should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs 

v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants urge the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that amendment 

is futile. Opp’n at 2. The Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated futility of 

amendment, prejudice or otherwise overcome the presumption in favor of granting leave to 

amend. 

“[A] proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the 

amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.” 

Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, Plaintiff’s proposed 

amendment would add a new PAGA claim for Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and 

other Picc Nurses for non-productive time and rest periods. PSAC ¶ 53. Plaintiff has 

alleged facts that would constitute a sufficient claim: Plaintiff was an at-will employee (Id. 

¶ 13), Plaintiff was paid piece-rate wages (Id. ¶ 21), Plaintiff was never compensated for 

time on the job in between insertions and for rest periods (Id. ¶ 22), other Picc Nurses were 

not paid for non-productive time or rest periods (Id. ¶ 23). Case law supports Plaintiff’s 

argument that employees paid under a piece-rate system are entitled to separate 

compensation for non-productive work and for rest periods. See Gonzalez v. Downtown LA 

Motors, LP, 215 Cal. App. 4th 36, 40-41 (2013) (finding that automotive technicians paid 

on a piece-rate basis were “entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent waiting 

for repair work or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer during their 

work shifts...”); Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 4th 864, 872 (2013) 

Case 3:16-cv-01814-JD Document 33 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

(explaining that rest periods must be separately compensated in a piece-rate system, as 

required by Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 314, 323 (2005)). 

Defendants argue that amendment is futile because “Plaintiff has failed to allege 

facts sufficient to constitute any claim for relief.” Opp’n at 2. The Court disagrees. In 

ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court held that Plaintiff has sufficiently 

pleaded most of the claims in the complaint. Adding one more claim under PAGA would 

not require Plaintiff to “completely change or falsify” any allegations, as Defendants 

assert. See id. The fact that the PSAC only adds one new factual allegation in paragraph 

twenty three (23) refutes Defendants’ argument that amendment would “require Plaintiff to 

make things up.” PSAC ¶ 23; Opp’n at 2. 

Further, the rest of the Foman factors also weigh in favor of granting leave to 

amend. First, Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith or unduly delayed the proceedings. The 

FAC was filed only 34 days after the original complaint. Second, amendment would not 

prejudice Defendants because amendment is occurring early in the proceedings and 

because Defendants had notice of Plaintiff’s intention to add a new PAGA claim. Mot. at 

5; Royer Decl. ¶¶ 10-12. Third, contrary to what Defendants imply, there has been no 

“repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” Opp’n at 2; 

Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Employees, 708 F.3d at 1117. Plaintiff has only amended 

once as a matter of course. 

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for 

leave to file a second amended complaint. The amended complaint shall be filed no later 

than September 29, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 09/08/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-01814-JD Document 33 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 4