Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 ELIZABETH ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 20-cv-01178-JD individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs, 6 Re: Dkt. No. 48 v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant.

This order resolves defendant Starbucks Corporation’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 48. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. 1. Limitations and Relation Back Dismissal on timeliness grounds is denied. The claims in the SAC relate back to the original complaint, Dkt. No. 1-2, which was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court on June 27, 2019. “An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading” when the amendment asserts a claim that “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out -- or attempted to be set out -- in the original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). The “relation back doctrine is to be liberally applied,” because the purpose of Rule 15(c) “is to provide maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on…