Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

10 Citing cases

  1. Clayborne v. Lithia Motors, Inc.

    1:17-cv-00588-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021)

    Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that the relation back doctrine of Rule 15(c) does apply to PAGA claims. Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 577 Fed.Appx. 718, 719 (9th Cir. 2014). Defendants contend that the statute of limitations has expired on Plaintiff's PAGA claim, therefore, Plaintiff cannot add a new PAGA claim.

  2. Reyes v. Sky Chefs, Inc.

    Case No. 20-cv-08590-LB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    In Milligan v. American Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit reversed as an abuse of discretion a district court's denial of leave to amend to add a ยง 226(a) PAGA claim when the complaint already had a ยง 226(e) class claim. 577 F. App'x 718, 718 (9th Cir. 2014).

  3. Eiland v. Sacramento Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

    No. 2:18-cv-1042 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020)

    Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not state law "Doe" pleading practices, governs whether new defendants may be added and if so, whether the claims against them would relate back to the filing of the initial complaint. See Santana v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 686 F.2d 736, 740 (9th Cir. 1982); Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 577 F. App'x 718, 719 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding in the context of a state law claim that "[c]ontrary to the district court's decision, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) controls, not [California law]"). Rule 15(c)(1) states, in relevant part: An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: (A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back;

  4. Cortez v. United Nat. Foods, Inc.

    Case No. 18-cv-04603-BLF (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019)   Cited 17 times
    Accepting "25% benchmark rate" as "typical" in "wage and hour class action" after defendants provided "previous awards [p]laintiff's counsel ha[d] received in a similar wage and hour class action"

    The mere fact that the information was missing from the wage statement is not a cognizable injury. See id. at 1142-43; accord Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 577 Fed. App'x. 718, 719 (9th Cir. 2014); Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 974, 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

  5. Richards v. CoreCivic of Tenn., LLC

    Case No.: 1:17-cv-1094 - LJO - JLT (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Id., 2015 WL 326202 at *7 (citing Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 577 Fed. Appx 718, 719 (9th Cir.2014)). In relevant part, Rule 15 provides that "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 outโ€”or attempted to be set outโ€”in the original pleading."

  6. Gillman v. United States

    Civ. No. 16-00001 JMS-RLP (D. Haw. Mar. 13, 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing FTCA claim brought pursuant to violations of a federal statute

    A claim arises "out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence" if it "share[s] a common core of operative facts such that the plaintiff will rely on the same evidence to prove each claim." Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 577 F. App'x 718, 719 (9th Cir. 2014) (mem.) (reversing district court's denial of leave to amend a claim that "share[d] a common core of operative facts" with claims originally pled); Frontline Processing Corp. v. Barack Ferrazzano Perlman & NagelbergLLP, 571 F. App'x 586, 587 (9th Cir. 2014) (mem.

  7. Dorfman v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Co.

    CASE NO. CV 15-06370 MMM (ASx) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2015)   Cited 6 times

    In Santana, the Ninth Circuit held that if the relation back provision of Rule 15(c) conflicted with state substantive law, "[Supreme Court precedent] command[ed] the application of Rule 15(c)." Id. (citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)); see also Richardson v. HRHH Gaming Senior Mezz, LLC, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2015 WL 1691972, *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2015) (applying Rule 15(c) in a diversity action); Sarkizi v. Graham Packaging Co., No. 1:13-CV-1435 AWI SKO, 2014 WL 6090417, *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) (same); see also Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 577 Fed. Appx. 718, 719 (9th Cir. June 5, 2014) (Unpub. Disp.) (holding in the context of a state law claim that "[c]ontrary to the district court's decision, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) controls, not [California law]").

  8. Johnson v. Serenity Transp., Inc.

    141 F. Supp. 3d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 44 times
    Holding plaintiff "must allege specifically both of the elements of alter ego liability, as well as facts supporting each"

    The mere fact that the information was missing from the wage statement is not a cognizable injury. See id. at 1142โ€“43, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 174 (noting that the "deprivation of [the] information, standing alone is not a cognizable injury") (internal quotation marks, citation, and footnote omitted); see also Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc. , 577 Fed.Appx. 718, 719 (9th Cir.2014) (citation omitted) ("[T]he injury requirement... cannot be satisfied simply because one of the nine itemized requirements in [Section 226 ] is missing from a wage statement."). However, "the types of injuries on which a Section 226 claim may be premised include โ€˜the possibility of not being paid overtime, employee confusion over whether they received all wages owed them, difficulty and expense involved in reconstructing pay records, and forcing employees to make mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid in fact compensated them for all hours worked."

  9. Munoz v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation

    1:09-CV-0703 AWI JLT (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2015)

    The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) controls relation back for PAGA claims not California procedure. Milligan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 577 Fed. Appx 718, 719 (9th Cir. 2014). Rule 15(c) states "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."

  10. Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    No. B272353 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2017)

    Because the inquiry is objective, relying on whether a "reasonable person would be able to readily ascertain the information" (Lab. Code, ยง 226, subd. (e)(2)(C)), and not on whether any particular plaintiff could have, the inquiry now appears to be one easily amenable to common proof in a class action. (Lubin, at p. 959.) Allstate argues against this conclusion, stating that the injury inquiry is still a subjective one even after the 2013 amendment, by relying on Milligan v. American Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 577 Fed.Appx. 718, 719, an unpublished 9th Circuit case. Unpublished federal authority has no precedential value, but may be cited as persuasive.