Barajas v. Carriage Cemetery Services of California, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleged violations of wage-and-hour laws. In May 2019, Defendant Carriage Services, Inc. (CSI) and other defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. At the July 16, 2019 hearing, the court stated that it was denying the motion as to Yoshira Barajas’s overtime claim but granting the rest of the motion, with permission to amend. A later minute order confirmed that ruling and identified allegations that needed to be included in a second amended complaint, but it did not state a filing deadline.

The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint within 30 days after the hearing. They later submitted a proposed second amended complaint on September 10, 2019. CSI answered the first amended complaint and moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss the claims that had not survived the earlier motion. CSI also requested, in the alternative, that the court enter judgment under Rule 54(b).

Rule 41(b) Analysis

Rule 41(b) permits a defendant to seek dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with the rules or a court order. CSI argued that the court had ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by August 15, 2019. The court recognized that an oral directive can qualify as a court order if it is clear, but it also noted that the hearing statements and minute order might not have clearly required filing by that date.

The court did not decide whether a clear order requiring an August 15 filing existed. It held that, even if the court had expressly set that deadline, dismissal would still be inappropriate.

For a dismissal as a sanction, the court considered five factors: the public’s interest in resolving litigation promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, the policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe alternatives were available.

The court concluded that the delay was relatively minor and had not materially harmed the prompt resolution of the case or docket management. The court also found that the delay was less than a month if August 15 was the applicable deadline, and that the plaintiffs had identified reasons for the delay, including collecting information needed for the amended complaint and uncertainty about whether a firm deadline existed.

The court rejected CSI’s claimed prejudice based on having answered the first amended complaint and conducted discovery. Those tasks would generally have been required even if the plaintiffs had filed the second amended complaint on time. Any new answer or discovery would supplement, rather than duplicate, the work already performed.

Disposition

The court denied CSI’s Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss and denied its alternative motion for entry of judgment. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file their second amended complaint within two days of the order. CSI was ordered to respond to that complaint, either with an answer or a motion, within three weeks of the order.

The court also allowed Williams Davis to voluntarily dismiss her claims without prejudice because the plaintiffs indicated that they intended to proceed with only three named plaintiffs and the court found no apparent prejudice to CSI. The order disposed of Docket No. 42.