Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00083-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dart Container Corporation
Defendant
Dart Container Corporation of California
Defendant
Angela Flores
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ANGELA FLORES, individually and 

on behalf of other similarly 

situated current and former 

employees,

Plaintiff,

v.

DART CONTAINER CORPORATION, a 

Nevada corporation; DART 

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF 

CALIFORNIA, a Michigan 

corporation, and DOES 1-100, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00083

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Angela Flores brought this action, 

individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current 

and former employees, against defendants Dart Container 

Corporation and Dart Container Corporation of California, 

alleging claims for failure to furnish accurate wage statements, 

unfair business practices, and a representative claim to assess 

Case 2:19-cv-00083-WBS-JDP Document 22 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 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

2

and collect civil penalties. Before the court is plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Docket 

No. 10) and for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

(Docket No. 15.)

“Once the district court ha[s] filed a pretrial 

scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

16[,] which establishe[s] a timetable for amending pleadings[,] 

that rule’s standards control[ ].” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). A party 

seeking leave to amend under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate “good 

cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 

amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

Within three weeks after the court issued the 

Scheduling Order, plaintiff propounded formal discovery on 

defendants. Defendants provided initial responses to 

interrogatories on July 29, 2019. Defendants then provided 

supplemental responses to interrogatories by mail on October 16, 

2019. Based on those supplemental responses, specifically policy 

documents that outline defendants’ sick leave policy, plaintiff’s 

counsel noticed that defendants compensated plaintiff for 

redeemed sick pay solely at her base hourly rate and failed to 

include shift differentials. Plaintiff contacted defense counsel 

regarding the anticipated need to amend the Complaint to include 

sick pay claims on October 24, 2019 –- only eight days after 

discovering the potential claims. Under these circumstances, the 

court finds good cause.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “leave to 

Case 2:19-cv-00083-WBS-JDP Document 22 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 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

3

amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to 

the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates 

undue delay.” Id. None of those circumstances are present 

here.1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 

modify the scheduling order and for leave to file an amended 

complaint (Docket No. 15) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date this 

Order is signed to file an amended complaint consistent with this 

Order.

Dated: March 11, 2020

1 This court’s granting of leave to file an amended 

complaint is without prejudice to defendants raising any 

arguments in a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 

Case 2:19-cv-00083-WBS-JDP Document 22 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 3