Case No. 17-cv-00446-HSG.

STARVONNA HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Petition for Removal
Nature of Suit: 790 Labor: Other
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Starvonna Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall , Woodall Law Offices.

Starvonna Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Page R. Barnes , Barnes Law Offices.

Jonathan Strickland, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall , Woodall Law Offices & Page R. Barnes , Barnes Law Offices.

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendant, represented by Barbara Jean Miller , Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Bryan Jarrett , Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Sarah Jane Allen , Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.


Re: Dkt. No. 46

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. No. 46, which is now fully briefed. The motion seeks to add a seventh cause of action for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seq., by Plaintiff Harris, on behalf of Defendant's current and former California employees. Dkt. No. 46-2 at 22-24 (redlined second amended complaint). Under Federal Rule of Procedure 15(a)(2), "leave to amend shall be freely granted `when justice so requires.'" Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). "This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The five factors relevant to determining proper amendment are (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) previous amendments. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Wash. State Republican Party v. Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012) (same factors). The Court weighs prejudice to the opposing party most heavily. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Id. (emphasis in original). Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudice or make a strong showing as to any of the other Foman factors, and the presumption in favor of granting leave to amend applies. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.1 The second amended complaint must be filed by July 14, 2017.



1. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases