Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01258/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01258-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lance Aytman
Plaintiff
Keith Hooker
Plaintiff
Alex Horn
Plaintiff
Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLC
Defendant

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX HORN, LANCE AYTMAN, and 

KEITH HOOKER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY 

LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS

(Doc. 111)

Currently before the Court is a motion to amend the pleadings filed by Plaintiffs Alex 

Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker on January 19, 2024. (Doc. 111.) Defendant Kraft 

Heinz Food Company LLC filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion on January 

23, 2024. (Doc. 114.) The matter is deemed submitted on the record. L.R. 230(g). For the 

reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the pleadings will be GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action on August 19, 2021. (Doc. 1.) 

Defendant answered the complaint on October 26, 2021. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiffs now seek leave to 

file an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The purpose of the 

amendment is to (1) remove Plaintiff Aytman’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional 

distress, but not Plaintiff Horn’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) remove 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 117 Filed 01/25/24 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

Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to provide them with a full copy of their personnel records 

in violation of Cal. Lab. Code§ 1198.5; (3) remove Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to 

provide them with their pay records in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; and (4) update the 

caption and signature block to include all current attorneys of record. (Doc. 111 at ¶ 2.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which addresses amendments to pleadings, is the 

appropriate mechanism for a plaintiff to eliminate some but not all claims without dismissing any 

of the defendants. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 

687-88 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, however, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) 

comes after expiration of the Scheduling Conference Order deadline for amendment to the 

pleadings.

1

 (Doc. 19.) As a result, the Court must first apply the standard for amending a 

scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, before it may evaluate if amendment 

is appropriate under Rule 15(a). Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 

2000) (finding district court correctly addressed motion for leave to amend under Rule 16 because 

it had issued a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings 

and the motion was filed after the deadline had expired); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 

605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (“[O]nce the district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant 

to Rule 16 which establishes a timetable for amending pleadings, a motion seeking to amend 

pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), and only secondarily by Rule 15(a).”). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Green Aire 

for Air Conditioning W.L.L. v. Salem, No. 1:18-cv-00873-LJO-SKO, 2020 WL 58279, at *3 (E.D. 

Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (“Requests to modify a scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may modify a scheduling order 

‘only for good cause.’”). The good cause inquiry under Rule 16(b) primarily considers the

1 Plaintiffs indicate that on January 27, 2023, the Court ordered the dates from the original Scheduling 

Order be extended for five months and, as such, the deadline to file pretrial motions was extended to 

January 26, 2024. (Doc. 111 at ¶ 1, citing Doc. 56.) While Plaintiffs correctly identify the extended 

deadline for pretrial motions, the Court did not extend the February 4, 2022 deadline for stipulated 

amendments or motions to amend the pleadings. (See Docs. 19, 56.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 117 Filed 01/25/24 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

3

diligence of the party seeking to modify the scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the schedule “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. at 609. If there is 

good cause to modify the scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16(b), then the Court will “turn to 

Rule 15(a) to determine whether the movant’s requested amendment to the pleading should be 

granted.” Ramos v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00973, 2019 WL 2106172, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 

14, 2019) (citing Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 607).

Plaintiffs do not address the good cause standard, noting only that certain deadlines were 

previously extended by the Court and that the proposed amendment will clarify Plaintiffs’ claims. 

(Doc. 111 at ¶¶ 1, 2.) Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that the proposed amendment seeks to 

eliminate claims, which will promote the interests of justice and efficiency. These interests 

warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretion to modify the scheduling order. See FMC Corp. v. 

Vendo Co., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1030 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (“The decision to modify a scheduling 

order is within the broad discretion of the district court.”). The Court therefore turns to Rule 

15(a) to determine whether amendment to the pleading should be granted. 

Rule 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as 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, futility of amendment, etc. —the 

leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 

merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 

649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 

pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 

(9th Cir. 1981). 

Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 

under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 

and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 117 Filed 01/25/24 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

1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 

1995) (citing Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be 

the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC 

v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is 

the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 

Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the 

most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a 

presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 

F.3d at 1052.

Plaintiffs here substantively seek to remove Plaintiff Aytman’s claim for negligent 

infliction of emotional distress and to remove their claims made pursuant to Cal Lab. Code §§ 

226 and 1198.5. Defendant does not oppose removal of these claims. On this record, the Court 

concludes that there will be little prejudice, if any, in permitting Plaintiffs to amend their 

complaint to remove the identified claims. None of the remaining factors overcome the 

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 

request for leave to amend the pleadings will be granted. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Amend the Pleadings (Doc. 111) is GRANTED; 

2. Within five (5) court days after issuance of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file their

Amended Complaint, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit A to the motion; and

3. Defendant shall file an answer or other responsive pleading in compliance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any relevant Local Rules following electronic service of the 

Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 117 Filed 01/25/24 Page 4 of 4