Droesch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-06751
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Droesch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: Judge Corley granted plaintiffs leave to add two representatives and an Arizona wage claim.
The ruling affects Denise Droesch, Shakara Thompson, the proposed additional named plaintiffs Kyonna Harrison and Shana Goins, the proposed California and Arizona classes, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. It allows the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint but does not decide the underlying wage claims.
What happened
In Droesch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the plaintiffs brought a wage-and-hour case against their former employer. After the court compelled arbitration for Denise Droesch and certain opt-in plaintiffs and conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act collective, the plaintiffs asked to amend their complaint.
The proposed amendment would add Kyonna Harrison and Shana Goins as named plaintiffs and add an Arizona state-law wage claim for an Arizona class. Wells Fargo opposed the request, arguing that it was late and would delay and prejudice the case.
The court found no undue delay, material prejudice, bad faith, or futile claim. Judge Corley granted the motion to amend and ordered the plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint within three business days; the court also scheduled another case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Droesch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 3:20-cv-06751
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Dec. 6, 2021
Background
Denise Droesch and Shakara Thompson brought a wage-and-hour action against their former employer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., on behalf of themselves and others. The court had previously compelled arbitration as to Droesch and certain opt-in plaintiffs, and had conditionally certified a collective under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. After notice was issued to a 7,257-person collective, the plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint.
The proposed amendment would add Kyonna Harrison and Shana Goins as named plaintiffs. Harrison would replace Droesch as the proposed representative for the California class, and Goins would represent a proposed Arizona class. The amendment would also add a wage claim under Arizona law for that proposed class.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court concluded that the earlier order setting a deadline to amend was not a scheduling order that triggered the stricter good-cause standard under Rule 16.
The court rejected Wells Fargo’s argument that the plaintiffs had delayed improperly. Although the case had been pending for more than a year, it remained in its early stages, with no fact-discovery deadline or case schedule. The plaintiffs explained that they had first addressed arbitration, then conditional certification and reconsideration issues, and moved to amend after identifying Harrison and Goins through the opt-in process.
The court also found no material prejudice. Discovery was still in its early stages, and the proposed additions involved claims already pleaded for the California class or a related Arizona-law claim. The court found no evidence of bad faith and no indication that the proposed amendment would be futile. Wells Fargo did not argue that the amendment was futile.
Disposition
The court held that the relevant factors supported allowing the amendment under Rule 15(a)(2). It vacated the scheduled hearing and GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. The plaintiffs were ordered to file the proposed amended complaint within three business days. The court also set a further case-management conference for January 13, 2022, and ordered the parties to submit a schedule by January 6, 2022.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.