The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge
Order GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 
Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file his First Amended Complaint is before the Court. The Amended Complaint adds several items and clarifies the original complaint. First, it adds class action allegations that Defendants failed to pay class action members minimum wages and overtime for time spent traveling to and from employee parking lots and airport security. Second, it adds a fifth cause of action for off-the-clock claims under FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, on behalf of Plaintiff individually and as a collective action under the opt-in provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 216. Third, it narrows the putative subclasses to ramp agents at Los Angeles International Airport. Fourth, it adds a second meal period subclass. Fifth, it clarifies Plaintiff's late final pay claim.
Under the Court's scheduling order, Plaintiff may amend his pleadings on or before January 23, 2012. Dkt. No. 11. Because December 26, 2011 (28 days prior to the deadline) was a legal holiday, the last day for Plaintiff to file his Motion was the previous Friday, December 23, 2011. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6; L.R. 6-1. Yet, Plaintiff overlooked this and filed the Motion on Monday, December 26, 2011.
Parties met pursuant to L.R. 7-3 on December 16, 2011, discussing certain amendments to the complaint. Counsel conferred at least one additional time prior to the filing of the Motion. Unable to reach a stipulated agreement, Plaintiff filed this Motion requesting leave to amend.
A. Legal standard for motion for leave to amend
When the right to amend as a matter of course has been extinguished, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's consent or with the court's leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But, Rule 15(a) is "very liberal"-courts should "freely give leave when justice so requires." AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Still, courts need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or, (4) is futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Of these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Without a showing of prejudice, or strong evidence of any of the other factors, there is a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Id.
B. Defendants fail to articulate any prejudice to them as a result of the amended complaint
Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's amendments to clarify its late final pay claim and to narrow the putative subclasses to ramp agents at Los Angeles International Airport. Defs.' Opp'n at 1. Indeed, these amendments assist the litigants and the Court, and are welcomed. For the other amendments, the Court is not convinced Defendants will be prejudiced, or that Defendants even argued that it would be prejudiced.
At best, Defendants assert Plaintiff's FLSA claim would transform the case into a "hybrid collective action", causing confusion. Id. at 10. It would seem, if there would be any confusion, that this confusion would be directed to and would not prejudice Defendants. For instance, this Court may someday regret that it allowed the case to proceed as both a FLSA collective action and a state law class action. Likewise, potential participants to the litigation might be troubled with the hybrid opt-in/opt-out procedure. But, there is no evidence that Defendants would be prejudiced.
Courts have found, when based on related underlying facts, a FLSA claim can proceed simultaneously with state law class action claims. See Ervin v. OS Rest. Servs., 632 F.3d 971, 977-78 (7th Cir. 2011). Further, it is not unduly demanding for potential participants to "make two binary ...