Opinion
1:20-cv-00190-NONE-HBK
09-23-2021
MIYOSHI GARCIA, et. al. Plaintiffs, v. WESTLAND FARMS, LLC, et. al. Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. No. 18)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint ("SAC") with supporting exhibits, including, but not limited to, a declaration of Juan Gamboa and the proposed second amended complaint. (See Doc. Nos. 18, 18-2, 18-4). Only Defendant Westland Farms, LLC, filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. No. 20). A Clerk's entry of default was previously entered against Defendants Maria Guadalupe Luna and M.G. Luna, Inc. for failure to timely respond to the original complaint. (See Doc. No. 11).
The Court's Scheduling Order did not set a deadline within which any motions to amend were required to be filed. (See Doc. No. 15). Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to the "liberal amendment procedures afforded by Rule 15." AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2006). Rule 15 mandates this Court to "freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(1)(2). "In 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, [or] futility of amendment" leave must be "freely given." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Plaintiff proposed second amended complaint includes an additional overtime claim omitted in the previous complaint and identifies the entity who allegedly grew crops on Defendant Westland Farm, LLC's property and was responsible for the failure to pay wages to Plaintiffs, which was learned in discovery. (Doc. No. 18-1 at 2; Doc. No. 18-4). Defendant Westland does not oppose Plaintiff filing a second amended complaint and Plaintiffs efforts to confer with M.G, Luna Inc, or Maria Guadalupe Luna went unanswered. (See Doc. Nos. 20, Doc. 18-2 at ¶ 5). Given the procedural posture of this case and upon review of the proposed second amended complaint, the Court finds no showing of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or futility.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs shall file their operative Second Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order and timely effect service of the Second Amended Complaint upon any unserved defendant.
3. The current served Defendants shall file a response to the Second Amended Complaint after its filing within fourteen (14) days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3).
Although Plaintiffs attached a proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiffs requested 10-days within which to file its Second Amended Complaint in their proposed order. (Doc. no. 18-5). Instead of directing the Clerk to docket the proposed second amended complaint as the operative pleading, the Court will permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to file the operative pleading in an abundance of caution.