DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC

Background

The court had previously certified as class actions plaintiffs’ claims for reporting-time pay, wage statements, and unfair business practices. It had declined to certify the claim for waiting-time penalties and invited further briefing on that claim.

Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental brief requesting leave to amend, a proposed Second Amended Complaint, and briefing concerning class certification of the waiting-time-penalties claim. The proposed complaint alleged that plaintiffs DiMercurio, Gaeth, and Langlitz were discharged in connection with a refinery sale. It asserted a waiting-time-penalties claim under California Labor Code section 201 on behalf of discharged employees.

Leave to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally provides that permission to amend a pleading should be freely given when justice requires. A court may deny permission because of undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility. The court explained that prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight, and that without prejudice or a strong showing of another factor, there is a presumption favoring amendment.

The court found that Equilon had not established prejudice. The limited new facts concerning the refinery sale were known to Equilon. Although the original complaint did not identify plaintiffs who had been discharged rather than resigned, it had placed Equilon on notice that plaintiffs intended to assert a waiting-time-penalties claim for discharged employees. The court also noted that DiMercurio, Gaeth, and Langlitz’s section 201 claims did not exist when the case began because they had not yet been discharged, and that the proposed amendment broadened only the waiting-time-penalties subclass, not the overall class.

The court further found no undue delay because plaintiffs had been trying in good faith to meet pleading requirements and follow the court’s guidance. It also found that amendment was not futile because the amended claim was at least arguably suitable for class certification. The court therefore granted leave to amend.

Class Certification and Scheduling

The order states that the court would hear argument concerning class certification of the waiting-time-penalties claim. It set that argument for October 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. by video and scheduled a further case-management conference for the same time. The excerpt does not show a ruling granting or denying class certification of that claim.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend. This order did not decide the merits of the waiting-time-penalties claim or resolve class certification of that claim.