CARLOS ALEJANDRO LARIOS, individually and on behalf of other members of the others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC. And DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Dkt. Nos. 34-1, 36, and 37
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Carlos Alejandro Larios' ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to Amend the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 15(a). (Dkt. No. 34; Motion to Amend.) Plaintiff seeks to file his proposed third amended complaint ("TAC") adding a claim for missed and late meal periods. Defendant Nike Retail Services, Inc. ("Nike") opposes. (Dkt. No. 36.) Plaintiff replied. (Dkt. No. 37.) The motion is submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). After a review of the briefs, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANT Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.
On July 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Nike alleging claims for unpaid wages based on Nike's purported improper rounding of time, erroneous calculation of employees' regular rate-of-pay, and various off-the-clock violations. (Dkt. No. 1; "Complaint.")
On August 12, 2011, Nike filed a motion to dismiss or strike pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) and 12(f). (Dkt. No. 3.) However, on September 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, adding a claim for relief alleging a violation of California Labor Code section 2698 ("FAC"). (Dkt. No. 8.)
On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint ("SAC"), which currently serves as the operative complaint, pursuant to Plaintiff and Nike's stipulation to dismiss Plaintiff's claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and allow the filing of the SAC. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) On September 20, 2011, the Court granted the parties' aforementioned stipulation. (Dkt. No. 11.)
On September 28, 2012, the Court denied Nike's motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) and 12(f). (Dkt. No. 21.) Accordingly, on October 12, 2012, Nike filed an answer to the SAC. (Dkt. No. 22.)
On October 12, 2012, the case was transferred from the Hon. Barry Moskowitz to the calendar of the Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel. (Dkt. No. 23.)
On May 24, 2013, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to modify the scheduling orderregulating discovery and class certification, setting, inter alia, the following deadlines:
March 15, 2013 Deadline for filing any motion to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings. August 23, 2013 Deadline for completing class discovery/discovery cut-off date. September 23, Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion for class certification. 2013
(Dkt. No. 30.)
On March 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed this motion to amend his complaint. (Dkt. No. 34.) On April 8, 2013, Nike filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend the SAC. (Dkt. No. 36.) ...