Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:18-cv-05813
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield, Judge Corley denied Dixon’s motion to change deadlines and add Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. to the lawsuit.
Dimitri Dixon and Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.; the ruling also prevented Dixon from adding Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. as a defendant through the proposed amendment.
What happened
Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. is a wage-and-hour lawsuit in which Dimitri Dixon alleged that appraisers were wrongly treated as exempt from overtime pay. Dixon asked to change the case schedule and add Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. as a defendant so additional employees could join the collective action.
The court found that Dixon had not acted diligently because she knew, or should have known, of the relationship between the two companies and potential claims against Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. before seeking to add it. The court also found that adding the company would cause delay, although diligence was the main issue.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Dixon’s motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a second amended complaint. Because Dixon did not satisfy the required diligence standard, the court did not analyze whether the amendment should be allowed under the more flexible amendment rule.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-05813
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 9, 2020
Background
Dimitri Dixon brought a wage-and-hour lawsuit against Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. Dixon alleged that appraisers and senior appraisers were misclassified as exempt employees and therefore were not paid guaranteed wages and overtime compensation. Dixon had worked for the defendant as an appraiser from 2007 to 2018. The case included a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a California state-law class action.
Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. has offices only in California and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. Four additional appraisers joined the case as opt-in plaintiffs; they had worked for other subsidiaries of Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. After the deadline for amending the pleadings had passed, Dixon asked to modify the scheduling order and file a second amended complaint adding Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. as a defendant. The proposed amendment would also have expanded the collective action to include appraisers and senior appraisers employed by Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
Legal Standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) governed because Dixon sought to change the scheduling order after its amendment deadline. Under Rule 16(b), the party seeking the change must show “good cause,” with the main focus on that party’s diligence. If that standard is met, the court then considers leave to amend under Rule 15(a), which generally favors allowing amendments when justice requires.
Court’s Analysis
Dixon argued that she had been diligent because the defendant did not tell her that Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. should have been named and because the defendant’s discovery conduct treated the two companies as though they were the same entity. The court rejected those arguments.
The court found that Dixon either unreasonably believed Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. employed appraisers nationwide or knew that it employed appraisers only in California. The court noted that Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. had been named in two other collective actions involving appraisers and that the defendant’s corporate disclosure statement identified it as a wholly owned subsidiary. The court concluded that these facts gave Dixon clear and repeated indications that additional parties might need to be named.
The court also rejected Dixon’s argument that the defendant should have instructed her to add Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. The court stated that the plaintiff bears responsibility for properly prosecuting her case and that the omission was an oversight that could not be attributed to the defendant. The defendant’s discovery conduct did not overcome Dixon’s lack of diligence. The court further stated that adding Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. would cause prejudice because the company would need an opportunity to appear, respond to the complaint, and address the conditional-certification motion, delaying the case.
Because Dixon did not satisfy Rule 16(b)’s diligence requirement, the court found it unnecessary to conduct a Rule 15(a) analysis.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Dixon’s motion to modify the court’s scheduling order and for leave to amend. The order disposed of Docket No. 59.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.