Case Name: Rebecca Gaytan v. Samaritan, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 18-CV-333810

This is a putative wage and hour class action by employees of defendant Samaritan, LLC dba Good Samaritan Hospital. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) adding a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion on January 28, 2019.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a non-exempt certified nurse assistant at its facilities and offices in San Jose. (Complaint, ¶ 2.) She alleges that defendant required her and other nurse assistants to perform off-the-clock work before and after their shifts, and rounded their time to the nearest quarter hour, to employees’ detriment. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff and putative class members also were not provided with the opportunity to take timely, uninterrupted, and duty-free meal and rest periods. (Ibid.) Further, their wage statements failed to accurately set forth the applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each rate. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

Based on these allegations, plaintiff seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all of defendant’s California employees during the class period. (Complaint, ¶ 23.) She also seeks to certify subclasses corresponding to the various cases of action alleged in the complaint: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to pay wages and overtime, (3) meal period liability, (4) rest break liability, (5) wage statement violations, (6) violations of Labor Code section 221 arising from a failure to provide meal periods, (7) failure to timely pay wages owed at termination or resignation, and (8) violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Plaintiff filed her original complaint on September 26, 2018, and defendant answered on October 29. Also on September 26, plaintiff filed a notice with the Labor and Workforce and Development Agency (“LWDA”), stating her intent to file an additional claim under PAGA. She received no response from the LWDA, and the administrative exhaustion period expired on November 30. On November 19, plaintiff sent defendant a draft FAC adding a PAGA claim, and asked whether defendant would stipulate to the filing of the FAC by November 28. Defendant did not respond. This motion followed, which defendant does not oppose.

II. Analysis

Under PAGA, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a plaintiff may as a matter of right amend an existing complaint to add a cause of action arising under this part at any time within 60 days of” administrative exhaustion. (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (a)(2)(C).) Here, plaintiff filed her proposed FAC—which adds nothing more than a claim under PAGA arising from her existing allegations—on November 30, the day she exhausted her administrative remedies. Under these circumstances, she may file the FAC as a matter of right, and her motion will accordingly be granted.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the FAC is GRANTED. The FAC shall be deemed filed as of November 30, 2018. Within 10 days of the filing of the Court’s order, plaintiff shall re-file the FAC as a standalone document in the Court’s e-filing system.

The Court will prepare the order.