Hughes v. United Airlines Inc.

Background

In October 2022, Darrell Hughes sued United Airlines, Inc. and unnamed defendants on behalf of a proposed class of current and former flight attendants and pilots. Hughes, who had been a United flight attendant from November 2015 through August 2, 2022, alleged violations of California’s wage-and-hours laws, including failures to provide reporting-time pay, meal and rest breaks, full reimbursement of business expenses, accurate payroll records, and waiting-time penalties. He also asserted a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Hughes moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend the complaint. The proposed amendment would add Robin Goings, a current United flight attendant who had worked there since 1994, as a class representative and would add a request for injunctive relief. The opinion states that Hughes apparently was negotiating an individual settlement and that Goings, unlike Hughes, was still employed and could pursue injunctive relief.

United’s Opposition

United argued that California Labor Code section 512.2 made the amendment futile. Section 512.2(a)(1) exempts certain airline cabin-crew members from California meal- and rest-break requirements when they are covered by a qualifying collective-bargaining agreement addressing those breaks. Section 512.2(c), effective for the relevant period beginning December 5, 2022, bars filing a new legal action asserting meal- or rest-break violations by or on behalf of a person covered by such an agreement.

United argued that adding Goings and seeking injunctive relief after section 512.2 took effect was effectively the filing of a new lawsuit. It also argued that the amendment would prejudice United because, in its view, section 512.2 resulted from a legislative agreement intended to prevent lawsuits like this one.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The relevant considerations include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, and whether the complaint was previously amended. Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor, and the party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing it. Rule 15(c), known as the relation-back rule, allows an amendment to be treated as filed on the date of the original pleading when the claims arise from the same conduct or occurrence and other requirements are met. For a new plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit’s requirements include adequate notice, no unfair prejudice, and an identity of interests between the original and proposed plaintiff.

The court held that section 512.2(c) did not apply because Hughes’s case had already been filed before the statutory bar took effect. The court reasoned that filing an amended complaint under Rule 15 is not filing a new legal action, even if the amendment does not relate back to the original complaint. The court also relied on legislative history stating that cases filed by December 5, 2022, were free to continue through their ordinary course.

The court rejected United’s characterization of section 512.2(c) as a statute of repose. A statute of repose generally establishes a defined period during which a plaintiff may file a claim, beginning with a specified event such as the defendant’s last act or omission. The court found that section 512.2(c) instead imposed a ban on certain claims and did not establish such a filing period. Because this case was outside the provision’s reach, the proposed amendment was not barred by section 512.2(c).

The court also rejected United’s argument that adding Goings was equivalent to filing a new lawsuit. The original complaint defined a proposed class that included Goings. The court explained that Rule 15 permits adding or substituting a class representative and permits changing the remedy requested. It found that the proposed amendment involved the same claims, that Hughes and Goings had an identity of interests, and that Goings’s addition merely expanded the requested relief to include an injunction concerning the break claims.

Finally, the court found that United had not shown prejudice under Rule 15(a)(2) or unfair prejudice under Rule 15(c). At the hearing, United essentially conceded that it would not be prejudiced if section 512.2(c) did not apply and the other amendment and relation-back requirements were satisfied.

Disposition

The court granted leave to file the proposed amended complaint and stated that the ruling disposed of Hughes’s motion to amend, ECF No. 16. The order addressed amendment of the pleadings; it did not decide whether United was liable for the alleged wage-and-hours violations.