Harris v. Door Dash, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-09445
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Harris v. Door Dash, Judge Corley allowed Harris to file a second amended complaint, found both wage claims sufficient for screening, and required a summons.
Kevin Jerome Harris’s wage claims against Door Dash, Inc. were allowed to proceed past screening, but service on Door Dash, Inc. could not occur until Harris filed the required summons.
What happened
In Harris v. Door Dash, Inc., the court allowed Kevin Jerome Harris to file a second amended complaint against Door Dash, Inc. The court said the new filing addressed the earlier problem with his overtime claim.
The court screened the complaint because Harris was proceeding without paying filing fees. It found that both his minimum-wage and overtime claims were sufficient to pass that screening. The court also granted his request to amend because service had not occurred, the amendment did not appear futile or made in bad faith, and it would clarify his claims.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered Harris to file a summons containing an address where Door Dash, Inc. could be sued by October 3, 2022. The court said the case could proceed after that filing and that the clerk would then arrange service without requiring advance payment of fees.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Door Dash, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-09445
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Kevin Jerome Harris submitted a filing that the court treated as a request to file a second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The court had previously found that his minimum-wage claim passed screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but that his overtime claim did not contain enough factual allegations. The court had given Harris additional time to amend, but he did not file the new complaint by the earlier deadlines. He later submitted the second amended complaint.
Permission to Amend
The court granted Harris’s request to file the second amended complaint. It reasoned that Door Dash, Inc. had not yet been served, so the amendment would not prejudice the company. The court found no evidence of bad faith, determined that the amendment would clarify the factual basis for the claims, and concluded that it was not futile because it addressed the deficiencies identified in the earlier screening order.
Screening
Because Harris was proceeding without paying filing fees, the second amended complaint was subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court found that the complaint sufficiently stated both claims. It restated the minimum-wage claim and provided additional information about the overtime claim, including how many hours Harris worked and how much he was paid.
Service and Disposition
The court ordered Harris to file a summons that included an address where Door Dash, Inc. could be sued. After Harris files the summons, the clerk will be directed to serve the complaint, amendments, and other specified documents on Door Dash, Inc. without requiring advance payment of fees. The court’s conclusion states that Harris’s request to file the second amended complaint was granted, that the complaint satisfied § 1915 screening, and that Harris must file the summons by October 3, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.