1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM GUSTAVO GUSMAN, and ALAN 12 REYES on behalf of themselves and those ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING similarly situated, 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 15 (Doc. 19) R T FARM LABOR, INC., et al., 16 ORDER SETTING STATUS Defendants. CONFERENCE 17 18 Currently before the Court is the motion of Plaintiffs Claudia Gonzalez Mondragon, 19 Gustavo Gusman, and Alan Reyes (collectively “Plaintiffs”) for leave to file a first amended 20 complaint. (Doc. 19.) No defendant has appeared in this action The Court therefore finds the 21 instant motion suitable for resolution without oral argument. L.R. 230(g). Accordingly, the 22 motion hearing currently set for September 22, 2023, is HEREBY VACATED. 23 Having considered the briefing and record in this case, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a 24 first amended complaint will be granted. 25 BACKGROUND 26 On October 3, 2022, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 27 individuals, filed this putative class action against Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc. Ricardo 28 Trevino Jr., Ricardo Gomez Trevino, and Harold Chuhlantseff. (Doc. 1.) The action arises out of 1 defendants’ alleged failure to pay seasonal agricultural workers for all the wages owed to them. 2 Plaintiffs have been unable to serve Defendant Chuhlantseff with the summons and 3 complaint, but now anticipate they will be able to serve the original and first amended complaint 4 by substitute service. (Doc. 19-1, Declaration of Gonzalo Quezada at ¶ 7.) Default has been 5 entered against the remaining Defendants Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R.T. Farm Labor, Inc., and 6 Ricardo Trevino, Jr. (See Doc. 15; Doc. 19 at pp. 3-4.) 7 On August 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking to amend the complaint to 8 add an additional defendant allegedly responsible for the wage and hour violations: T&C 9 Vineyards. Plaintiff also appears to add a PAGA claim for penalties against Defendants 10 Chuhlantseff and T&C Vineyards. (See Doc. 19-2.) 11 DISCUSSION 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides:

13 A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it; or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 14 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of motion under Rule 12(b), (e) or (f) whichever is earlier. 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, a party may amend it pleading only with the opposing 17 party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court “should freely give 18 leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme 19 Court has stated:

20 [i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies 21 by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. —the leave sought 22 should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 23 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 24 merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 25 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 26 pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 27 (9th Cir. 1981). 28 Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 1 under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 2 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 3 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 4 1995) (citing Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be 6 the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC 7 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is 8 the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 9 Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the 10 most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a 11 presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 12 F.3d at 1052. 13 In this case, no responsive pleading has been filed and Plaintiffs may amend the complaint 14 as a matter of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 15 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be granted as a 16 matter of course, at least until the defendant files a responsive pleading.”); see also Sousa v. 17 Walmart, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00500-EPG, 2023 WL 5278662, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2023) 18 (“Under Rule 15(a), a party is entitled to amend its pleadings once as a matter of course before a 19 responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).”); Gilbert v. Castrejon, No. 1:22-cv-00319- 20 ADA-SKO, 2023 WL 2189403, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2023) (“Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal 21 Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend their pleading once as a matter of course at any time 22 before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).”). Even if that were not the case, 23 the Court finds leave to amend under Rule 15 appropriate given the early stages and procedural 24 posture of this action. There will be little prejudice to defendants in permitting the amendment as 25 Defendants Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R.T. Farm Labor, Inc., and Ricardo Trevino, Jr. are in 26 default and Defendants Chuhlantseff and T&C Vineyards will be served with the amended 27 28 1 complaint.1 Plaintiff also has not unduly delayed in seeking to amend the complaint, the 2 amendment is not brought in bad faith, and there is no indication that such amendment is futile. 3 Accordingly, leave to file a first amended complaint will be granted. 4 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 19) is GRANTED; 7 2. Within five (5) court days after issuance of this Order, Plaintiff shall file the First 8 Amended Complaint, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Gonzalo 9 Quezada, Esq. (Doc. 19-3); and 10 3. The Court sets a STATUS CONFERENCE for November 2, 2023, at 9:00 AM in 11 Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to address the status of 12 service of the First Amended Complaint and, if appropriate, scheduling of this action. The parties 13 shall appear at the conference remotely either via Zoom video conference or Zoom telephone 14 number. The parties will be provided with the Zoom ID and password by the Courtroom Deputy 15 prior to the conference. The Zoom ID number and password are confidential and are not to be 16 shared. Appropriate court attire required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: September 7, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 1 Service of the amended complaint is not required on the defaulted defendants because the amended 25 complaint does not assert new or additional claims for relief against those defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2) (“No service is required on a party who is in default for failing to appear. But a pleading that 26 asserts a new claim for relief against such a party must be served on that party under Rule 4.”); see Tatum v. Layers, LLC, No. 19-CV-02668-DMR, 2021 WL 6332677, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2021), report and 27 recommendation adopted, No. 19-CV-02668-EMC, 2021 WL 6332781 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021) (finding Rule 5(a)(2) did not require service of the amended complaint on defaulted defendants where amended 28 complaint added new forms of relief but did not assert any new claims against those defendants).