Hubbard v. Google LLC

Background

After a status hearing following reassignment of the case, the court set a schedule for discovery, expert disclosures, briefing, and a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The schedule included a September 18, 2024 deadline for the plaintiffs to file their class-certification motion and a January 21, 2025 hearing.

The plaintiffs also moved for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. They sought to replace certain unresponsive plaintiffs who were the only representatives for their states and to remove, without replacement, all plaintiffs representing South Carolina and South Dakota. They also sought to withdraw claims arising under the laws of those states. The parties agreed that the proposed amendments would not substantively change the allegations.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Because the deadline for seeking amendment had passed, the court first considered whether there was good cause to modify the scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The court found that the plaintiffs had acted with sufficient diligence, considering the circumstances surrounding multiple recent case reassignments and the timing of their request.

The court then applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which generally favors allowing amendments absent undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, repeated failure to fix pleading deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futile amendment. The court found that these factors favored amendment. The proposed changes would not require additional motion-to-dismiss briefing, the plaintiffs did not show a dilatory motive, and the amendment was not intended to correct previously identified pleading deficiencies. The court also found no undue prejudice because the plaintiffs were not adding substantive allegations, the defendants would not need to serve new discovery requests for the new plaintiffs, and the existing deadlines would apply.

The defendants argued that amendment would be futile because the plaintiffs’ allegations were fatally flawed. The court concluded that this argument effectively asked it to decide the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss and declined to rule on that motion prematurely.

Order

Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. The order required the plaintiffs to file the amended pleading by May 28, 2024; limited additions or removals to those proposed in the motion; prohibited new claims; and required newly added plaintiffs to file magistrate-judge-consent forms by May 31, 2024.

The court also ruled that the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss would remain responsive to the forthcoming pleading, so the new pleading would not moot that motion and the defendants would not need to file a new motion. The defendants could seek permission to file a new motion to dismiss for good cause by June 4, 2024.