UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESIDERO SOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00251-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND MODIFY CASE 

MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 222

The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted.

1. Because the plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint after the deadline to amend

pleadings, they must show good cause exists to modify the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). Under this standard, a "district court may modify the pretrial schedule 'if [the schedule]

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) 

advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment). The plaintiffs could not have reasonably met 

the August 2017 deadline to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs could not have named

Comcast as a defendant in August 2017 because the plaintiffs had not yet received the discovery 

that supports their allegations that Comcast is a joint employer. In fact, because of O.C. 

Communications' stonewalling, the plaintiffs did not receive this discovery – which they first 

requested in May 2017 – until January and February 2018. Dkt. No. 227-1, Leimbach Decl. at 

¶¶ 10-11; Dkt. No. 227-2, Leimbach Decl. Ex. 1 at 3-5. And the plaintiffs could not have alleged 

a Washington class in August 2017 because the named plaintiffs at that time would have lacked 

standing to bring claims under Washington law. Cf. In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litigation, 529 
2

F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1106-07 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

2. Leave to amend is also appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Leave 

can be denied if an amended pleading would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party. But

O.C. Communications has not shown undue prejudice. The proposed amendments do not 

dramatically alter the scope of the litigation or impose significant costs on O.C. Communications

that would have been avoided had the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include jointemployer allegation or Washington state-law claims at an earlier date. Cf. AmerisourceBergen 

Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006); Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990). Moreover, O.C. Communications has been 

on notice that the plaintiffs were interested in pursuing a Washington State class since at least 

August 2017. Dkt. No. 227- 1, Leimbach Decl. at ¶ 8. And it was on notice that the plaintiffs 

were looking into whether Comcast was a joint employer since at least May 2017. Dkt. No. 227-

2, Leimbach Decl. Ex. 1 at 3-5. To be sure, this case has been delayed. It has been delayed

primarily by O.C. Communications' intransigence. Any harm O.C. Communications has 

experienced is of its own making.

3. The deadlines relating to class certification are vacated. Thursday's hearing on the 

motion for leave to amend is converted to a case management conference. The parties should 

meet and confer beforehand on a revised case management schedule. The proposed amended 

complaint is deemed filed as of today. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge