Refuerzo v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Background

Roreste Refuerzo and Selina Cashin sued Southwest Airlines Co. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. They allege that Southwest penalized flight attendants for exercising rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act.

Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for permission to file a second amended complaint. The proposed amendment would add flight attendants who took continuous leave. Plaintiffs argued that the amendment was needed to provide remedies for those class members, that they had not acted improperly or waited too long, and that Southwest would not be unfairly harmed.

Plaintiffs also sought an order requiring Southwest to supplement its responses to a set of document and electronically stored information requests.

Leave to Amend

The court explained that after a party has amended once as a matter of course, further amendment generally requires the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission. Rule 15 directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. Courts may deny permission because of undue delay, bad faith, unfair prejudice, or a futile amendment.

The court rejected Southwest’s undue-delay argument. Plaintiffs said they learned during an April 25, 2023 deposition that Southwest treated continuous and intermittent family and medical leave alike when determining whether flight attendants could improve their attendance records. Southwest argued that documents showed plaintiffs knew or should have known this earlier.

The court disagreed. It found that the documents suggested the policies might be similar but did not show that plaintiffs knew continuous-leave takers were being penalized in the same way. The court also found plaintiffs had adequately explained why the relevant deposition occurred when it did. It stated that delay alone would not justify denying the amendment.

The court also rejected Southwest’s claim of unfair prejudice. The facts plaintiffs sought to allege were known to Southwest or within its possession or control, and Southwest had notice of plaintiffs’ intent to include continuous leave by May 5, 2023. The possibility of additional discovery, by itself, was insufficient to overcome Rule 15’s policy favoring amendments.

Ruling

The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs were ordered to file the amended complaint by August 25, 2023, and Southwest was ordered to respond within 30 days. The court also set a further case-management conference for October 19, 2023.

The opinion states that the order disposes of Docket No. 76, which contained both the amendment request and the request to compel supplemental discovery responses. However, the discussion and conclusion expressly address and grant leave to amend, while stating that discovery issues might be addressed at the later conference if appropriate. The opinion does not clearly state whether the discovery-compulsion request was granted or denied.

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley issued the order.