Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02328/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02328-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
UBS Financial Services Inc.
Defendant
David Waisbein
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAISBEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.,

Defendant

 /

No. C-07-2328 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS; DISMISSING PAGA

CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY;

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING

HEARINGS

Before the Court are three motions: (1) defendant UBS Financial Services Inc.’s

“Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment,” filed

January 11, 2008; (2) defendant’s “Motion to Stay Discovery,” filed January 11, 2008; and

(3) plaintiff David Waisbein’s “Motion for Leave to Amend,” filed February 22, 2008. The

matters have been fully briefed. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the above-referenced motions, the Court deems the matters suitable for

decision thereon, vacates the March 21, 2008 hearing on defendants’ motions and the

March 28, 2008 hearing on plaintiff’s motion, and rules as follows.

A. Motion for Judgment on Pleadings or for Summary Judgment

1. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, a plaintiff must, in order to state a claim under

the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), allege compliance with the

Case 3:07-cv-02328-MMC Document 70 Filed 03/19/08 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

1

Defendant has not opposed plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend on the ground

plaintiff has not identified the putative class[es] in the proposed SAC.

2

administrative procedures set forth in § 2699.3(a) of the California Labor Code. See

Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 134 Cal. App. 4th 365, 382 (2005). Because

plaintiff does not plead such compliance in his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), the

PAGA claims alleged therein are subject to dismissal. See id. at 383.

2. Contrary to defendant’s argument, allowing plaintiff leave to refile his existing

PAGA claims, with an allegation that he has complied with the above-referenced

administrative procedures, would not be futile by reason of the applicable one-year statute

of limitations. California courts have held, under analogous circumstances, that an

exhausted claim, although alleged in an amended complaint filed after expiration of the

statute of limitations, relates back to a prior timely-filed complaint based on the “same set

of facts.” See, e.g., Goldman v. Wilsey Foods, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 3d 1085, 1094 (1989);

Bahten v. County of Merced, 59 Cal. App. 3d 101, 113-15 (1976), overruled on other

grounds, State v. Bodde, 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1244 (2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(c)(1)(A) (providing amended pleading relates back to original pleading where “law that

provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back”).

B. Motion to Stay Discovery

In light of the above rulings, defendant’s motion to stay discovery, by which

defendant seeks an order staying discovery relevant to plaintiff’s PAGA claims until such

time as the Court rules on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, will be denied

as moot.

C. Motion for Leave to Amend

1. Contrary to defendant’s argument, defendant has not shown plaintiff’s proposed

amendment to allege a putative class is futile. The class is not defined in the proposed

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and, consequently, the question of plaintiff’s standing

to bring his claims on behalf of others is premature at this time.1

2. Contrary to defendant’s argument, defendant has not shown the proposed

Case 3:07-cv-02328-MMC Document 70 Filed 03/19/08 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

amendments, or any part thereof, are barred by undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice. The

authority on which defendant relies is distinguishable, as defendant has taken little to no

discovery, and the instant action has yet to proceed beyond the pleading stage. Cf. Ascon

Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F. 2d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding defendant

would be prejudiced by amendment to add “new theory” where defendant had “incurred

substantial litigation costs” in defeating plaintiff’s previous claims); In re Beverly Hills

Bancorp (Commercial Paper Holders v. Hine), 752 F. 2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1984)

(holding amendment to allege new claim improper where existing claim had been “litigated

on the merits”).

3. Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiff’s PAGA claims as alleged in the

proposed SAC are not futile; as set forth above, the PAGA claims relate back to the FAC.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above,

1. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby GRANTED, and

plaintiff’s PAGA claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is hereby DENIED as moot.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is hereby GRANTED; plaintiff shall file his

proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than March 28, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02328-MMC Document 70 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 3