Rittmann v. Amazon.com Inc

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR — 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 7 — WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al., CASE NO. C16-1554-JCC — 10 — Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 AMAZON.COM INC, et al., 13 Defendants. — 14 — 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the consolidated 16 complaint (Dkt. No. 244). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant 17 record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On March 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Kimberlee Keller and Tommy Garadis (“Keller Plaintiffs”) 20 provided statutory notice to Defendants and to the California Labor Workforce Development 21 Agency (“LWDA”) of their intent to pursue Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claims for 22 Defendants’ alleged Labor Code violations. (Dkt. No. 245-1.) On March 13, 2017, the Keller 23 Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of California. (Dkt. No. 24 245 at 2.) The complaint did not include PAGA claims, as the required 65-day waiting period to 25 allow LWDA to respond had not yet lapsed. (Id.) 26 In April 2017, Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of California. Keller 1 et al v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. C19-1719-JCC, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 2 (hereafter “Keller”). In May 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer venue. 3 Id., Dkt. No. 13. The Court granted the stay in August 2017. Id., Dkt. No. 35. In October 2019, 4 the case was transferred to this district and the stay was lifted. Id., Dkt. No. 84. In November 5 2019, the case was transferred to this Court. Id., Dkt. No. 90. In June 2022, the case was 6 consolidated with the instant case. (Dkt. No. 200.) At that time, this case was stayed. 7 On July 26, 2022, the Court lifted the stay in part, and ordered to parties to submit a joint 8 status report on how the consolidated cases should proceed. (Dkt. No. 226.) On September 15, 9 2022, the Court lifted the stay in full, and ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule for 10 the case. (Dkt. No. 234.) On October 11, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order, which 11 included a deadline for Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint. (Dkt. No. 237.) Plaintiffs filed 12 a consolidated complaint on November 14, 2022. (Dkt. No. 238.) 13 Plaintiffs now ask the Court for leave to amend the consolidated complaint to add a 14 PAGA claim on behalf of the Keller Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 244.) 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally improper under Rule 16(b). 17 (Dkt. No. 250 at 9–10.) The Court previously set a deadline for the Plaintiffs to file an amended 18 consolidated complaint. (Dkt. No. 237 at 3.) Given the complexity of this case, with multiple 19 parties and consolidated cases, the Court also stated that leave to amend was granted for the 20 “sole purpose of consolidating the various cases before the Court into one complaint.” (Dkt. No. 21 234 at 3 n.1.) 22 Because the Court already set a deadline for amendment, Plaintiffs may only modify the 23 Court’s scheduling order for good cause and with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 24 The focus of inquiry for deciding whether such good cause exists is whether the party seeking 25 modification has been diligent. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 26 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2017). 1 Here, although it has been almost six years since the Keller Plaintiffs filed suit, the Court 2 nonetheless concludes they have been diligent in seeking amendment. After the Keller Plaintiffs 3 first filed suit, they were required to wait 65 days before adding any PAGA claims. Before the 4 waiting period had expired, the case was removed, transferred, and stayed numerous times. 5 When Keller was transferred to this district, the Court noted the claims in the case were 6 “identical to, or closely mirror, the claims in Rittmann/Mack,” implying the Keller case would be 7 consolidated with Rittmann. Keller, C19-1719-JCC, Dkt. No. 84 at 3. At that time, Rittmann was 8 stayed. Although Keller was not technically stayed, it was not unreasonable for the Keller 9 Plaintiffs to assume that they could not move forward until the stay was lifted in Rittmann. 10 Given the unique facts and complexity of this case and the number of parties involved, it 11 would be unreasonable to conclude that the Keller Plaintiffs were not diligent when they waited 12 until now to request leave to amend the complaint to add PAGA claims. Thus, the Court finds 13 good cause and will consider the motion to amend. Under Rule 15, leave to amend should be 14 freely granted when justice so requires, absent undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure 15 deficiencies, undue prejudice to the other party, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 16 U.S. 178 , 182 (1962). 17 As noted above, although six years have passed since the initial Keller complaint was 18 filed, the delay was not due to bad faith by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendants will not face 19 undue prejudice if Plaintiffs are allowed to amend to add these claims. Defendants were on 20 notice that the Keller Plaintiffs intended to bring PAGA claims when Plaintiffs provided 21 statutory notice to the LDWA in 2017. Additionally, there already exist other plaintiffs who 22 bring PAGA claims in the current consolidated complaint. This means that allowing amendment 23 here will not significantly expand the nature of the suit, as Defendants suggest. Finally, the case 24 is still at the very early stages and allowing an amendment will not delay the case in any 25 meaningful way. 26 Defendants also argue amendment is futile because the claims are time-barred. (Dkt. No. 1 250 at 13–15.) However, an amended complaint alleging PAGA claims may relate back to the 2 original complaint, as long as the amendment is based on the “same set of facts” as the timely3 filed complaint. Waisbein v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 2008 WL 753896 , slip op. at 1 (N.D. 4 Cal. 2008 ) (citing California cases); see also Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1184 , 1192 5 (E.D. Cal. 2017). And the case cited by Defendant is not applicable to the case at hand. See 6 Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc. 80 Cal. App. 5th 782 , 792 (2022) (amended complaint did 7 not rest on same facts as original complaint). Thus, the amendment is not time-barred and not 8 futile. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Because Defendants have not provided any compelling reason that amendment should 11 not be granted, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the consolidated 12 complaint (Dkt. No. 244). Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an amended complaint within seven 13 (7) days of this Order. 14 DATED this 30th day of January 2023. A — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — John C. Coughenour 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 —