Hall v. Google LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-06574
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Hall v. Google LLC, Judge Tigar granted Hall leave to file a second amended complaint adding her termination as support for a retaliation claim.
Hall may file a second amended complaint, while the defendants must address the amendment and participate in proposing an amended scheduling order. The order does not resolve the merits of Hall’s retaliation claim.
What happened
In Hall v. Google LLC, Jalon R. Hall asked to file a second amended complaint after Google terminated her on December 16, 2024. The proposed amendment would add that termination as an adverse action supporting her retaliation claim.
Hall had previously filed the proposed complaint without the required court permission, and the court struck it. She then promptly requested permission to file it. The defendants argued that changing the case schedule would prejudice them and disrupt their planned summary-judgment motion.
Judge Tigar granted Hall’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. He found good cause because Hall acted diligently, found no strong evidence of undue delay or bad faith, and found that any prejudice to the defendants would be minimal. Hall may file the complaint within seven days, and the parties must propose an amended schedule within fourteen days.
The detailed version
- Hall v. Google LLC · No. 4:23-cv-06574
- Jon Tigar
- July 16, 2025
Background
Jalon R. Hall filed her initial complaint on December 21, 2023, and later filed a first amended complaint after the parties stipulated to permit that amendment. Hall alleges that Google LLC terminated her on December 16, 2024. She told the court and the defendants that she intended to amend her complaint to address the termination.
The court set February 28, 2025, as the deadline for amending the pleadings. Hall filed a second amended complaint on that date, but she did so without court permission or the defendants’ consent. The defendants moved to strike the filing, and the court granted that motion on June 2, 2025. Hall then moved for leave to file the second amended complaint.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 requires good cause to modify a scheduling order, with the focus primarily on the diligence of the party seeking the change. Rule 15 generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court considered diligence, undue delay, bad faith, prejudice to the opposing parties, and whether the proposed amendment would be futile.
Court’s analysis
The court found good cause to modify the scheduling order because Hall acted diligently. She informed the defendants and the court of her intent to amend three weeks after her termination, filed the proposed complaint by the scheduling deadline, and filed the motion for leave one week after the court struck the earlier filing.
The court also found no strong evidence of undue delay or bad faith. Although Hall incorrectly understood Rule 15’s permission requirement, the court did not find that she acted in bad faith by filing without permission or by declining the defendants’ request to withdraw the complaint. The court was also unpersuaded that the narrow amendment would significantly or unduly delay the case. The amendment would add only a reference to Hall’s December 16, 2024, termination as an adverse action supporting her retaliation claim.
Disposition
Judge Tigar granted Hall’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The order allows Hall to file it within seven days. It also requires the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement proposing an amended scheduling order within fourteen days. The order decides whether Hall may amend her pleading; it does not decide the merits of her retaliation claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.