Opinion
Case No. CV 11-00413 AHM (AJWx).
June 27, 2011
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held) Before this Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint. The Court held a hearing on these matters on June 27, 2011, at which Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear. After considering the moving papers, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.A. Background
This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Chandler D. Abenoja ("Abenoja") on behalf of other Filipino seafarers who worked aboard the Ryndam, Maasdam, Zuiderdam, and Veendam vessels. Plaintiff brings this action under General Maritime Law and the Seamen's Wage Act ( 46 U.S.C. § 10313) for wages, maritime arrest, and maritime lien due to unpaid crew wages in personam against Defendants Holland America Line, N.V., Hal Antillen N.V., Hal Nederland N.V., Holland America Tours, and in rem against the vessels listed in the Complaint.B. Motion to Dismiss
Defendants seek to dismiss the complaint in its entirety because: (1) Plaintiff's individual claims are barred by laches, lack of standing, and the parties' arbitration agreement; and (2) Plaintiff's class allegations are barred by the three-year statute of limitations governing class actions under the Seamen's Wage Act.
Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to this Motion. "The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion." Local Rule 7-12. In addition, the motion appears meritorious on its face. Plaintiff's individual claims appear barred by the doctrine of laches. See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2002). His class allegations are barred by the statute of limitations governing Wage Act class actions. See 46 U.S.C. § 10313(g)(3). The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendants' unopposed Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, and dismisses the action in its entirety.
C. Motion to Amend
Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add Joselito Malabiga as a named Plaintiff to address what the Plaintiff characterized as the standing issues raised by Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss. Memo of Points and Authorities, at 4. Plaintiff missed the 21-day period for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint as a matter of right, which expired on Monday, May 16, 2011, 21 days after Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B) ("A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . 21 days after the service of a motion under Rule 12(b).")
Plaintiff's counsel appear to wish to add Malabiga as a named plaintiff in a belated attempt to circumvent defects in Abenoja's complaint, of which they were on notice as April 25, 2011, when Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. Apart from the dubious notion that incurable defects in a named plaintiff's complaint can be cured by adding (really, substituting) a different plaintiff, counsel failed to attempt this ploy as a matter of right within the authorized time frame. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. This action is therefore dismissed in its entirety. The clerk is directed to close the file.
Dkt. 16.
Dkt. 27.