Carl Williams v. Irwin Industries, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
O 1
2 3 4 5 6 7
8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California
10
11 CARL CURTIS; ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Case № 2:15-cv-02480-ODW (Ex)
12 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
13 v.
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
14 IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC.; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 15 DOES 1–100, [44]
Defendants. 16
17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiffs Carl Curtis and Arthur Williams (“Plaintiffs”) move for leave to file a 20 second amended complaint (“SAC”) in this wage and hour class action). (Mot. for 21 Leave to File SAC (“Mot.”), ECF No. 44.) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a SAC 22 (“Motion”) follows remand in part from the Ninth Circuit and an intervening 23 clarification in law as articulated by the Supreme Court in Parker Drilling Mgmt. 24 Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019). For the reasons that follow, the Court 25 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion.1 26 27
28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without…