Yanez v. HL Welding, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LUIS LOPEZ YANEZ on behalf of ) Case No.: 3:20-cv-01789-BEN-MDD himself and all others similarly situated, ) ) ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 ) MOTION TO AMEND THE v. ) COMPLAINT ) HL WELDING, INC., a California 15 ) [ECF No. 14] corporation, ) Defendant. ) 17 ) I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Luis Lopez Yanez (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and other current and former Pipe Fitters, Sheet Metal workers, Electricians, Machinists, Riggers and similar trades occupation (collectively “Tradespeople” or “Class Members”), brings a collective action for federal overtime pay, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the “FLSA”), and a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for state wage and hour claims arising out of the failure to pay overtime premium pay under certain federal and state wage laws by Defendant HL Welding, Inc., a California corporation (“Defendant”). ECF No. 1.

27 Before the Court is the Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding the Filing of a First Amended Complaint (the “Joint Motion”). ECF No. 14. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.

II. BACKGROUND A. Statement of Facts Plaintiff alleges that from approximately September 2014 to July 14, 2019, he worked as a Pipefitter and Sheet Metal worker for Defendant at its facilities in San Diego.

7 ECF No. 1 at 3,1 ¶¶ 9-10. He alleges that Defendant regularly failed to pay at appropriate pay rates. Id. at 4, ¶¶ 13-16.

B. Procedural History On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed this putative class action, alleging claims for relief for (1) failure to pay overtime wages, CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 510, 1194; I.W.C. Wage Order 16; (2) failure to furnish accurate wage statements, CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 226, 226.3; (3) waiting time penalties, CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 201-203; (4) unfair competition, CAL. BUS.

14 & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.; and (5) failure to pay overtime wages, 29 U.S.C. § 207.

15 ECF No. 1.

16 On December 18, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. ECF No. 4.

17 III. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Once a responsive pleading is filed, a plaintiff can amend a complaint “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.; see also Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that leave to amend is to be granted with “extreme liberality”).

23 IV. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) advise that they “have reached the terms of a proposed class, collective, and representative settlement.” ECF No. 14 at 2:4-5. They argue that “in furtherance of the parties’ proposed Settlement, Plaintiff seeks Unless otherwise indicated, all page number references are to the ECF generated | to amend the Complaint to (1) add additional Plaintiffs Kayasone Munogkhot and Julio Rubio, (2) clarify the putative class definition to include additional job titles, and (3) add ll an additional claim for Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA’) penalties premised on alleged violations of California Labor Code, as permitted by California Labor Code § 5 et seg.” Id. at 2:6-11.

6 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party seeks |Ito amend a complaint after a responsive pleading has been filed, the party may do so as long as (1) the opposing party consents or (2) the Court grants leave to amend. Thus, ? || where the opposing party has consented to the amendment, leave of court is not required.

10 such, the Court GRANTS this Joint Motion.

11 CONCLUSION 12 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and instructs Plaintiff || to file the First Amended Complaint on the docket within five (5) days of the Court’s order, || or by Wednesday, June 2, 2021.

Is IT IS SO ORDERED. ° || DATED: May 28, 2021 17 - ROGER T. BENIT 18 United States District Judge 3.