JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

Plaintiff Sean Powell ("Plaintiff") and Defendant United Rentals ("Defendant") (Plaintiff and Defendant are collectively referred to as the "Parties"), through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on October 23, 2017, Plaintiff Ricardo Castillo filed this putative class and collective action, alleging claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. ("FLSA) and Washington state law (ECF 1);

WHEREAS, on March 19, 2018, this Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, and dismissed Plaintiffs claims for minimum wage and overtime violations under Washington law and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Plaintiff's claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (ECF 30);

WHEREAS, on April 3, 2018, Plaintiff Ricardo Castillo filed his First Amended Complaint to revise the factual allegations to specify the exact workweeks wherein Plaintiff Ricardo Castillo was subject to overtime violations (ECF 34);

WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff Ricardo Castillo's First Amended Complaint (ECF 38);

WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint to substitute Plaintiff Ricardo Castillo with Plaintiff Sean Powell as named representative (ECF 53);

WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy and to avoid unnecessary motion practice, the Parties have met and conferred and have agreed to stipulate to leave for Plaintiff to file his Third Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff now seeks leave to file his Third Amended Complaint to revise the factual allegations to specify the exact workweeks wherein Plaintiff was subject to overtime violations;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff maintains that there is good cause for leave to amend his operative complaint. Granting leave to amend will facilitate the interest of justice by allowing the Parties to efficiently resolve all disputed issues in this action, including the issue of whether the Second Amended Complaint complies with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014). The procedural posture of the case supports amendment, as the Court has vacated the case schedule and a trial date has not yet been set;

WHEREAS, a true and correct copy of the proposed Third Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1;

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Third Amended Complaint, if permitted to be filed by order of the Court, shall be deemed served upon Defendant on the date this stipulation is approved by the Court;

WHEREAS, the Parties further agree that, if this stipulation is approved by the Court, Defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the date that this stipulation is approved by the Court to answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint; and

WHEREAS, if Defendant does not file a responsive pleading within thirty (30) days as set forth above, Defendant's Answer to the First Amended Complaint filed on April 17, 2018 (ECF 38) shall be deemed Defendant's Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Parties that:

[PROPOSED]ORDER

Pursuant to the accompanying stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.