Demetrius Smith, et al. v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). They also filed an administrative motion to extend pretrial deadlines. The opinion states that the parties were already engaged in ongoing discovery and that the plaintiffs had previously received an extension of the deadline to amend their pleadings.

Reasons for Allowing Amendment

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court considered bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to Rack Room Shoes, and futility.

The court found no evidence of bad faith. It did not find the proposed amendments inflammatory, and it explained that factual disputes about the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations generally should not be resolved on a motion for leave to amend.

The court also found no undue delay. The plaintiffs had disclosed their intention to seek the amendments at a May 28, 2025 case-management conference, sought an extension so the court could first rule on Rack Room Shoes’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and filed the amendment motion two weeks after that ruling.

The court found that Rack Room Shoes had not sufficiently shown prejudice. Discovery was ongoing, and discovery concerning additional tracking technologies had already been permitted for purposes of evaluating Rack Room Shoes’ intent regarding the pixel technologies at issue. The court also stated that the possibility of additional discovery alone was not enough to show prejudice and that Rack Room Shoes had not shown sufficient reputational harm.

As to futility, the court stated that the proposed additional allegations supported claims that had already survived dismissal. It explained that challenges to the legal sufficiency of claims involving newly added technologies could be addressed through summary judgment or other dispositive motions.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to file the proposed complaint by October 29, 2025.

The court also granted, as modified, the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to extend pretrial deadlines. The modified schedule set March 13, 2026, for motions for class certification and disclosure of supporting expert reports; April 17, 2026, for opposition and disclosure of opposing expert reports; May 8, 2026, for replies; and June 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. for the class-certification hearing in San Francisco, Courtroom 15, 18th Floor.

The order addressed amendment and scheduling issues. It did not decide the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.