Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00062/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00062-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FFE Transportation Services, Inc.
Defendant
Dennis Thomas
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

DENNIS THOMAS, an individual; 

on behalf of all others 

similarly situated and the 

general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

FFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, 

INC., a Delaware Corporation; 

and DOES 1-10,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

On November 29, 2018, Dennis Thomas (“Plaintiff”) sued FFE 

Transportation Services, Inc. (“FFE”) for wage and hour 

violations in San Joaquin County Superior Court. Exh. A to 

Notice of Removal (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. FFE removed the case to 

federal court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff now 

moves to amend his complaint. Mot. to Amend (“Mot.”), ECF No. 

13. Plaintiff seeks to add Jacinto Castillo (“Castillo”) as a 

plaintiff and include a claim for failure to indemnify for 

Case 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 6
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

necessary expenditures. Id. at 2.

FFE opposes Plaintiff’s motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 18. FFE 

argues the proposed amendment would result in undue prejudice as 

FFE has already incurred costs in defending Castillo’s separate,

now-dismissed action, and that Castillo is acting in bad faith 

and causing undue delay. Id. at 7–10. The Court finds that, 

given FFE’s prior litigation history with Castillo, Plaintiff’s 

proposed amendment would be unduly prejudicial.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to amend.1

I. BACKGROUND

FFE is a Delaware corporation. Compl. ¶ 10. Its drivers 

deliver frozen and refrigerated groceries. Compl. ¶ 12. 

Plaintiff represents a class of all current and former drivers 

employed by FFE in California. Compl. ¶ 20. Plaintiff contends 

that FFE failed to: (1) pay earned wages; (2) provide required 

meal periods; (3) authorize required rest periods; (4) pay wages 

on time; (5) provide accurate wage statements; and (6) pay 

appropriate wages upon termination. Compl. ¶¶ 29-67. Plaintiff 

alleges that FFE’s conduct amounts to unfair competition and 

business practices. Compl. ¶¶ 72–74. 

One year after FFE removed the case to federal court, 

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint. See ECF Nos. 1, 12. 

///

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 

for February 11, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would add Castillo as a plaintiff 

and include a failure to indemnify claim. Mot. at 2.

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

Before a court issues the scheduling order in a case, it 

“should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962). Rule 15(a)(2)’s policy of favoring amendments to 

pleadings “is to be applied with extreme liberality.” 

Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 

2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In 

deciding a request for leave to amend, “[c]ourts may decline to 

[do so] 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 County 

Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 

(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962)).

Of these factors, the prejudice that granting a motion to 

amend would inflict upon the opposing party impacts the analysis 

most significantly. Howey v. U.S., 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th 

Cir. 1973). It acts as the touchstone of the inquiry under Rule 

15(a)(2). Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 

1052 (9th Cir. 2003). “Prejudice exists where amendment will 

significantly hinder a defendant’s ability to defend against the 

Case 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 6
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

plaintiff’s claims, as in cases where the defendant has no 

notice, discovery has already been completed, or when the 

amendment will require relitigation of significant issues.” 

Owens v. Walgreen Co., No. 2:12-419-WBS-JFM, 2012 WL 2359996, at 

*2 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2012) (citing Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil 

Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1161 (9th Cir. 1989)).

B. Analysis

FFE’s primary argument in support of its opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion is that the proposed amendment would cause 

undue prejudice. Opp’n at 7. According to FFE this amendment 

would be prejudicial considering its litigation history with 

Castillo. Opp’n at 7–8. In May 2018, six months prior to the 

commencement of the instant action, Castillo, representing the 

same putative class, sued FFE for wage and hour violations in 

San Bernardino County Superior Court. Opp’n at 2; see Castillo 

v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., No. CIVDS 1811712 (San 

Bernardino Super. Ct. 2018). The action was removed to federal 

court a month later. Opp’n at 2; see Castillo v. FFE 

Transportation Services, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-01296-VAP (C.D. Cal.

2018). The litigation went on for almost a year, during which 

time Castillo failed to comply with federal discovery statutes 

and was delinquent in meeting agreed-upon and court ordered 

deadlines. Opp’n at 2. Ultimately, Castillo failed to timely

file a motion for class certification and the action was 

dismissed without prejudice in March 2019.

Meanwhile, as early as July 2018—four months before 

Plaintiff filed in state court—Plaintiff and FEE discussed the 

ongoing Castillo litigation. Declaration of David S. Binder 

Case 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 6
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

5

(“Binder Decl.”) ¶ 13, ECF No. 18-1. These discussions revealed 

that Plaintiff was in communication with Castillo. Binder Decl. 

¶ 13. FFE requested that Plaintiff join the Castillo action to 

avoid duplicative litigation. Binder Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff 

ignored this request and instead filed his complaint in San 

Joaquin County Superior Court. Binder Decl. ¶ 15.

Thus, Plaintiff was aware of the Castillo action, which 

included a failure to indemnify claim, well in advance of filing 

the instant action. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why 

Castillo failed to actively litigate his case in the Central 

District. And Plaintiff’s decision to file anew in San Joaquin 

County instead of joining that ongoing litigation goes similarly 

unjustified. What is known is: (1) FFE spent nearly a year

defending the Castillo action; (2) Plaintiff knew of this 

ongoing, related litigation; but (3) nonetheless, filed 

separately. And now Plaintiff seeks to resurrect what Castillo 

neglected and he ignored.

The Court declines to allow Plaintiff to do so. Permitting

Castillo to join this action and adding a failure to indemnify 

claim would, in effect, force FFE to duplicate its efforts in 

defending Castillo’s May 2018 claims. This would result in 

undue prejudice. Prejudice exists when the amendment requires 

relitigation of significant issues. See Ascon, 866 F.2d at 1161

(denial of a motion to amend upheld where plaintiff’s failure to 

carefully read the related statutes would result in additional 

litigation). Just under a year spent defending Castillo’s

claims is not insignificant. FFE has already expended 

substantial time and effort, which more cooperation by Plaintiff

Case 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 02/10/20 Page 5 of 6
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

6

at the outset would have avoided. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion is DENIED.

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00062-JAM-CKD Document 21 Filed 02/10/20 Page 6 of 6