Samora v. Chase Dennis Emergency Medical Group, Inc.

Background

Julie Samora moved for permission to file a second amended complaint adding Tiana Beard as an additional named class representative. The case-management order set September 21, 2020, as the deadline for amending pleadings, so the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires good cause to change a scheduling order. After finding good cause, the court applied Rule 15(a), which generally permits amendments when they are not made in bad faith, unduly delayed, unfairly prejudicial, or futile.

Beard had not obtained counsel until June 2021. Samora then sought the defendants’ agreement to add Beard, and the parties conducted discovery concerning Beard, including the defendants’ deposition of her. When the parties could not reach an agreement, Samora filed the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court found good cause because Samora acted diligently after Beard obtained counsel and attempted to obtain the defendants’ consent before seeking court permission. The court found no bad faith or undue delay.

The court also found no undue prejudice. Beard’s claims overlapped with Samora’s claims, although Beard did not assert Samora’s Private Attorneys General Act claim. The proposed amendment added no new claims or legal theories. The parties had already exchanged discovery concerning Beard, and the pending class-certification motion and trial schedule gave the defendants time to respond.

The court rejected the argument that the amendment was futile. Samora sought to add Beard because Beard was a non-clinical, hourly, non-exempt employee, while Samora was different. Samora argued that Beard’s participation could address a potential issue concerning whether Samora adequately represented that type of employee. The court did not decide that adequacy issue at this stage; it held only that it was not completely certain that no facts could support Beard’s claims as a named plaintiff.

Relation Back

The defendants argued that Beard’s claims did not “relate back” under Rule 15(c), meaning they could not be treated as filed on the date of the original complaint for statute-of-limitations purposes. The court said it was not clear that it needed to reach that issue because the filing of a class action tolls the applicable limitations period for class members until class certification is denied. The court had not denied class certification, the defendants admitted Beard was a member of the proposed class, and Beard’s claims were encompassed by the existing pleading’s class period.

The court nevertheless held that, if a limitations issue existed, the amendment would relate back. It found that the original complaint gave the defendants adequate notice of Beard’s overlapping claims, that the amendment would not unfairly prejudice them, and that Samora and Beard had an identity of interests because they allegedly experienced the same unlawful wage-and-hour practices and would rely on the same type of evidence.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman GRANTED the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court ordered Samora to promptly file it as a separate docket entry and stated that the order did not change the briefing schedule for the pending class-certification motion. The defendants remained free to challenge Beard’s suitability as a class representative during the class-certification proceedings.