Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01704/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01704-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd Fisher
Plaintiff
Osmose Utilities Services, Inc.
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

TODD FISHER, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND AND MODIFYING 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 18)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On February 

28, 2020, the motion came before the court for hearing. (ECF No. 26.) Adrian Bacon appeared on 

behalf of Plaintiff and Natalie Fujikawa appeared on behalf of Defendant. Having considered the 

parties’ briefing and oral arguments, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and 

modifies the schedule order as set forth herein.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this action in the Tulare County Superior Court on 

November 5, 2018. (ECF No. 1-2 at 1.) The complaint alleges wage and hour violations under 

California law against Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class “of all other persons 

employed directly by Defendant who were not paid wages pursuant to California law prior and 

subsequent to the date this action was filed.” (ECF No. 1-2 at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges 

Case 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 7
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

class claims for meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay 

all wages owed upon termination, and unfair business practices.

On December 12, 2018, Defendant filed its answer in Tulare Superior Court (see ECF No. 

1-3), and on December 13, 2018, Defendant removed the action to federal court on the basis of 

the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2, (5) (see ECF No. 1). 

On March 6, 2019, the parties filed their Joint Scheduling Report. In the report, Plaintiff 

stated: “Plaintiff has yet to amend the complaint to add PAGA allegations but plans to do so 

subject to Defendant’s agreement to allow Plaintiff leave to file their First Amended Complaint,” 

and “Plaintiff anticipates amending the complaint to add a claim under the Private Attorney 

General’s Act, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698 et. seq., now that the administrative prerequisites have 

been met. Plaintiff will endeavor to do so by stipulation.” (ECF No. 7 at 1, 3.)

The Court held a scheduling conference on March 14, 2019 (ECF No. 10), and on March 

21, 2019, the Court issued its Class Action Scheduling Conference Order (ECF No. 11). The 

Court did not set a deadline for amendment to the parties’ pleadings, noting only that the filing of 

motions or stipulations seeking leave to amend the pleadings “does not imply good cause to 

modify the existing schedule,” and that “any request for amendment under Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a) 

must not be: (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in 

bad faith; or (4) futile.” (ECF No. 11 at 2 (citation omitted).) 

On November 8, 2019, the parties filed a mid-discovery scheduling report in which the 

parties proposed a revised discovery schedule for the case. (ECF No. 15.) The report noted: 

“Plaintiff has yet to amend the complaint to add PAGA allegations but plans to do so. Defendant 

will not stipulate to an amendment at this time, but anticipates the issue arising as part of 

mediation, most likely in January 2020.” (ECF No. 15 at 1-2; see id. at 3.)

Mediation did not occur in January 2020,1and on January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to amend the complaint seeking to add PAGA claims. (ECF No. 18.)

////

////

1 Mediation is scheduled for March 5, 2020.

Case 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 7
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

II. MOTION TO AMEND

“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after 

serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after 

service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 

whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading 

only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Because more than twenty-one days have passed since Defendant served its answer, and 

Defendant has declined to consent to Plaintiff’s proposed amendment, Plaintiff may amend his 

complaint only with leave of the Court.

“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. 

15(a)(2). However, “[l]iberality in granting a plaintiff leave to amend is subject to the 

qualification that the amendment not cause undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad 

faith, and is not futile.” Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999). The court may also 

“consider the factor of undue delay,” but undue delay, by itself, “is insufficient to justify denying 

a motion to amend.” Id.

As noted, Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to add a PAGA claim.

Defendant opposes the motion, contending (1) amendment would cause undue prejudice to 

defendant, (2) amendment would be futile because the PAGA claim is barred by the statute of 

limitations, and (3) leave to amend should be denied based on undue delay and as a bad faith 

attempt to increase the cost of litigation.

1. Claim of undue prejudice to Defendant.

“Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor” to consider in determining 

whether to grant leave to amend. Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330–31 (1971)). “The party 

opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing prejudice.” Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 

F. Supp. 2d 865, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 

187 (9th Cir. 1987)); see Clarke v. Upton, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1041 (E.D. Cal. 2010); see also 

Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. v. Elan Corp., 274 F.R.D. 272, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “Absent prejudice, 

Case 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 7
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

there is a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Serpa, 318 F. Supp. 

2d at 870 (citing Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Defendant contends that it would be unduly prejudiced by the proposed amendment 

because the addition of a PAGA claim would increase the discovery required to defend against 

Plaintiff’s claims and adding a PAGA claim “at this stage would initiate an entirely new phase of 

discovery and motion practice, causing substantial and unfair prejudice to Osmose.” (ECF No. 23 

at 5.) During the February 28, 2020, hearing, Defendant also claimed that the “prejudice is 

extreme” because there is a completely different standard that applies to a PAGA claim, as 

opposed to the claims in the initial complaint; that Defendant would have taken a different 

approach in the case had there been a PAGA claim; and that the scope and manner of discovery 

would have been different. However, Defendant also admitted during the hearing that it has not 

yet provided any documents or other production in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests2and 

has not yet itself sought any discovery from Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendant was on notice, since 

at least March 6, 2019, that Plaintiff intended to amend the complaint to add a PAGA claim.

The Court finds, under the circumstances of this case, that Defendant has failed to 

demonstrate that it will be unduly prejudiced by the proposed amendment to add a PAGA claim. 

2. Claim that amendment would be futile.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion to amend should be denied on the basis of 

futility because the one-year statute of limitations for PAGA claims has expired and the claim 

does not relate back to the date this action was filed.

“An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . 

the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence 

set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1). In 

applying this standard, “[t]he court is to determine whether the amendment is transactionally 

related to the original pleading.” Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, 

“[w]hen a plaintiff seeks to amend a complaint to state a new claim against an original 

2 Plaintiff apparently served discovery requests on Defendant more than six months ago. Defendant has yet to 

respond to those requests but pointed out during the hearing that approximately three months ago, the parties agreed 

to a stay of discovery pending mediation.

Case 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/04/20 Page 4 of 7
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

defendant . . . [the court] consider[s] whether the original and amended pleadings share a 

common core of operative facts so that the adverse party has fair notice of the transaction, 

occurrence, or conduct called into question.” Id. at 325 (citations omitted). 

Here, the factual allegations of the original complaint (ECF No. 1-2) and the proposed 

amended complaint (ECF No. 18-1) are identical, or nearly identical. Thus, both the complaint 

and the proposed amended complaint share a common core of operative facts such that Defendant 

has fair notice of the conduct called into question by the proposed amendment to add the PAGA 

claim.

Defendant does not deny that there is a common core of operative facts between the 

complaint and the proposed amended complaint. (See ECF No. 23 at 3-4.) Instead, Defendant 

contends that relation back does not apply because Plaintiff failed to timely amend his complaint 

to add a PAGA claim. (Id.) Although timeliness of a proposed amendment is relevant for 

determining whether to grant leave to amend, and will be discussed below, timeliness is not a 

factor that the Court considers in determining whether a proposed amendment relates back to the 

original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1); Martell, 872 F.2d at 324-25.

The Court finds that the original complaint and the proposed amended complaint share a 

common core of operative facts so that Defendant had fair notice of the conduct called into 

question. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to add the PAGA claim relates back to the 

original complaint and amendment would not be futile. 

3. Claim of undue delay and bad faith.

Defendant also contends that leave to amend should be denied because Plaintiff unduly 

delayed in seeking to amend and because Plaintiff’s motion is a bad faith attempt to increase 

litigation costs. (ECF No. 23 at 4.)

As noted above, Plaintiff notified Defendant, and the Court, of his intention to amend the 

complaint to add a PAGA claim in March 2019, which was only a few months after this action 

was removed to federal court. Plaintiff has consistently stated since then his intent to amend to 

add a PAGA claim, including in a joint status report filed November 8, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel 

reached out to Defendant’s counsel in November 2019 to seek a stipulation to allow amendment, 

Case 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/04/20 Page 5 of 7
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

but Defendant refused. Plaintiff admits that there has been a delay in seeking to amend and that 

Plaintiff could have sought to amend sooner because the PAGA claim was exhausted and could 

have been added as early as February 2019. Plaintiff represented that this delay was not, however, 

in bad faith but was instead the result of a calendaring failure on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel.

The Court is concerned about this long delay in seeking to amend the complaint to add a 

PAGA claim. However, the Court does not find this delay sufficient, by itself, to justify denying 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend and, further, does not find that this delay was the result of bad faith

on the part of Plaintiff. See Bowles, 198 F.3d at 757 (Undue delay, by itself, “is insufficient to 

justify denying a motion to amend.”). 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend.

III. MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULE

As discussed during the February 28, 2020, status conference, the Class Action 

Scheduling Conference Order (ECF No. 11) is modified as follows:

Deadline/Cutoff Date

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) disclosure deadline April 1, 2020

Non-expert discovery cutoff August 17, 2020

Expert witness disclosure deadline May 15, 2020

Rebuttal expert witness disclosure deadline June 14, 2020

Expert discovery cutoff September 16, 2020

Motion for class certification deadline October 30, 2020

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 18) is granted. Plaintiff shall file his First 

Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date of this order; 

2. The Class Action Scheduling Conference Order (ECF No. 11) is modified as set 

forth above; and

3. A telephonic status conference is set for June 22, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. before 

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. To participate telephonically, each party is directed to use the 

following dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453. The parties are 

Case 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/04/20 Page 6 of 7
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

7

directed to file a joint status report one full week prior to the conference and email a copy of 

same, in Word format, to epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov for the Judge’s review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG Document 27 Filed 03/04/20 Page 7 of 7