Milligan
Milligan v. American Airlines, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mary Milligan appeals (1) the district court order denying leave to amend her complaint to add California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims alleging § 226(a) violations and (2) the order granting American Airlines (“American”) summary judgment for Milli-gan’s failure to present a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to § 226(e) injury.
1. The district court abused its discretion by denying Milligan leave to add her § 226 PAGA claims. See Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900, 911 (9th Cir.2003). These claims “share a common core of operative facts” with her § 226(e) claims (American’s alleged § 226(a) violations). Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir.2008). Therefore, the § 226 PAGA claims relate back to the original complaint. See id.
Contrary to the district court’s decision, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) controls, not Wilson v. People, 271 Cal.App.2d 665 , 76 Cal.Rptr. 906 (1969). See id. at 908 (discussing California procedural rule and holding “the rule of relation back does not operate to assign the performance of a condition precedent to a date prior to its actual occurrence”); Hanna v. Plumer,…