United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
WILLIAM ALSUP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
employment action, plaintiff moves to amend the complaint.
For the reasons discussed below, the motion is
following facts are taken from plaintiff's proposed
second amended complaint. In late 2010, the City and County
of San Francisco hired plaintiff De'Mario Grant to work
as a museum guard for the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco,
a charitable trust department of the City. At all relevant
times Grant was an individual with physical disabilities, and
in 2015, he submitted a request for intermittent leave under
the Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights
Act. Grant alleges numerous adverse employment actions as a
result of this request.
Corporation of Fine Arts Museums is a non-profit organization
whose sole purpose is to support the operation of the Fine
Arts Museums. The Corporation manages most of the day-to-day
operations of the museums, and is involved with the museum
stores, employees, fund-raising, membership, education, and
order dismissed plaintiff's claims against the
Corporation on the grounds that plaintiff's first amended
complaint failed to sufficiently plead that the Corporation
was his employer. Additionally, the complaint (1) failed to
identify the Corporation as a party against whom any claim
for relief was brought, (2) failed to identify the
Corporation as a party in the “Parties and
Jurisdiction” section of the complaint, and (3) failed
to allege that the Corporation was an employer subject to the
FMLA and CFRA. Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend his
complaint to correct these deficiencies (Dkt. Nos. 43, 46).
15(a)(2) advises, “The court should freely give leave
when justice so requires.” In ruling on motions for
leave to amend, courts consider (1) bad faith, (2) undue
delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of
amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously
amended their complaint. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d
805, 808 (9th Cir. 2003). Futility alone can justify denying
leave to amend. Ibid. The Corporation opposes the
motion, arguing that amendment would be futile and unduly
prejudicial, and that plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure
deficiencies in previous amendments.
Futility of Amendment.
motion for leave to amend may be denied if it appears to be
futile or legally insufficient. . . . [The] proper test to be
applied when determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed
amendment is identical to the one used when considering the
sufficiency of a pleading challenged under Rule
12(b)(6).” Miller v. Rycoff-Sexton, Inc., 845
F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
plaintiff's ten claims for relief can only be brought
against his employer. 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (FMLA); Cal.
Gov't Code § 12945.2 (CFRA); Cal. Gov't Code
§ 12940 (FEHA). It is uncontested that the City and the
Fine Arts Museums are both plaintiff's employers.
Plaintiff argues that the Corporation can also be held liable
as his employer because the Corporation and the Fine Arts
Museums were an “integrated enterprise.” This
order agrees, at least at the pleading stage.
entities will be deemed to be parts of a single employer for
purposes of FMLA if they meet the integrated employer test.
Factors considered in determining whether two or more
entities are an integrated employer include: (i) common
management; (ii) interrelation between operations; (iii)
centralized control of labor relations; and (iv) degree of
common ownership/financial control. 29 C.F.R. §
825.104(c)(2); see also Laird v. Capital Cities/ABC,
Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 (1998) (applying same test
for FEHA). “Corporate entities are presumed to have
separate existences, and the corporate form will be
disregarded only when the ends of justice require this
result.” Laird, 68 Cal.App.4th at 737. While
courts apply the four factors in its totality,
“centralized control of labor relations [is] the most
for purposes of determining if plaintiff's proposed
amended complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6), this order holds that plaintiff has alleged enough
factual material to show that the ...