Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 00-3184 SECTION: "K" (4)
March 19, 2004
MINUTE ENTRY
On February 25, 2004, the plaintiffs ("plaintiffs"), filed a Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint (doc. #115) requesting leave of the Court to allow them file their sixth amended complaint to add nine additional plaintiffs and dismiss the claims of two plaintiffs already named in this suit. A hearing on the motion was held on March 17, 2004.
During the hearing, the plaintiffs argued that because the proposed plaintiffs had already been deposed by the parties and because the defendants were made aware of the plaintiffs some time ago, there would be no prejudicial impact on the Class Certification hearing set for March 18, 2004. The plaintiffs further argued that because they are seeking to have this case certified as a state — wide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the claims of the nine additional plaintiffs will assist the Court in determining whether Wal-Mart had a state — wide practice of causing its hourly employees to work off the clock without compensation.
Wal-Mart argued that the addition of nine new plaintiffs at this late date after the parties have briefed the certification issues will prejudice Wal-Mart's ability to adequately address the issues before the Court. Alternatively, Wal-Mart suggested that if the Court grants the instant motion, it should be allowed an opportunity to brief the new factual issues raised by the addition of nine new — plaintiffs.
I. Factual and Procedural Background A. The Original Petition
On September 5, 2000, Derrin Basco, Dorothy English and Colby Lague ("plaintiffs") filed a Petition for Damages in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated class members, against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.(including all Louisiana Wal-Mart stores, Supercenters and Sam's Clubs)("Wal-Mart"). The petition also named Wal-Mart managers, James Banks, Chris Martin, Charles Lanclos, Charles Rinehart, Wayne Gordon, and Pat Curran ("the individual defendants"), as well as all other store, club, district and regional managers for the past ten years. ("John Does").
According to the petition, the plaintiffs each worked at either a Wal-Mart or Sam's Club store during the 1990's. The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart, acting through their managers, engaged in a pattern and practice of widespread wage abuses, including failing to record and pay for all the tir it requires its employees to work and for failing to permit employees to take rest or lunch break According to the complaint, the compensation for Wal-Mart's store, club, district and regional managers is in large part based on bonuses. The bonuses are enhanced by reduction of expenses and lowering overhead costs, the largest component of which is employee payroll, to reduce employee expense, the plaintiffs allege that the managers have adopted practices staffing employees, forcing employees to work off of the clock, causing employees to work without receiving their contractually required meals and rest breaks and manipulating time and wage records to reduce amounts paid to Wal-Mart employees.
As a result of these practices, the plaintiffs seek monetary and equitable relief, including unpaid wages, compensation for breaks, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiffs assert three grounds for recovery against the individual defendants: (1) failure to pay wages under La. Rev, Stat. § 23: 632; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) tortious interference with contractual relations.
The plaintiffs assert additional claims against Wal-Mart for breach of contract and conversion. The Court notes that the amended complaint refers to "defendants" throughout. However, the plaintiffs concede that they did not have a contract with the individual defendants and there are no allegations asserted to support a cause of action for conversion against the individual defendants. Therefore, the Court will not separately address the futility of these two claims.
On October 27, 2000, the defendants timely removed the case to federal court, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On February 9, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend, along with a Motion to Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The undersigned granted the Motion to Amend only to the extent that the plaintiffs sought to add Regina Geason and Michelle Stele as plaintiffs to the action. However, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to the extent they sought to assert individual claims against certain defendants, finding that the amendment would be fufile.
Rec. Doc. No. 9.
B. Subsequent Amendments
Subsequent to their amendment adding two new plaintiffs to this suit, on September 6, 2001, the plaintiffs file an unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which was granted by the District Judge. The purpose of the amendment was to remove Michelle Stele as a plaintiff to this action.
Rec. Doc. No. 27.
On November 30, 2001, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which was granted by the District Judge. In the third amendment, the plaintiffs removed Derrin Basco. as a named plaintiff and added Betty Matthews. Further, the plaintiffs amended its definition of "class" in the third amended complaint.
Rec. Doc. No. 39.
On May 9, 2002, the District Judge denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action. Thereafter, on February 25, 2003, the plaintiffs moved to file a fourth amended complaint, which was granted. The plaintiffs amended its complaint to pursue causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), since they were unable to pursue their remedies as a class under the state law of Louisiana.
Rec. Doc. No. 72.
Rec. Doc. No. 89.
On November 6, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to file a fifth amended complaint, which was granted. The plaintiffs added 15 additional plaintiffs to this suit alleging that because they wish to have this case certified as a statewide collective action under FLS A, the claims of the additional plaintiffs will assist the Court in determining whether Wal-Mart had a practice of causing it hourly employees to work off the clock with no compensation. C. Proposed Sixth Amendment
Rec. Doc. No. 105.
Now, the plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to add nine additional plaintiffs and dismiss the claims of two named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that because they wish to have this case certified as a statewide collective action under FLSA, the claims of the additional plaintiffs will assist the Court in determining whether Wal-Mart had a practice of causing it hourly employees to work off the clock with no compensation. The plaintiffs contend that the proposed plaintiffs have claims for unpaid wages which accrued more recently than the plaintiffs who are now parties to the suit.
Rec. Doc. No. 115.
Wal-Mart contends that the motion should be denied because the plaintiffs' delay in seeking the amendment and because of the prejudice it would cause Wal-Mart to suffer. Wal-Mart alleges that the collective action issue has been fully briefed and addition of these new plaintiffs would not allow it to adequately address the issues before the Class Certification hearing which is scheduled to take place on March 18, 2004. Wal-Mart stated no opposition to the plaintiffs request to dismiss the claims of two named plaintiffs already parties to this suit.
II. Legal Analysis
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a), which governs the amendment of pleadings, provides that leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). This, and other federal rules "reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957).
However, leave to amend is by no means automatic. Addington v Farmer's Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. 1981). The decision to grant or deny a motion for leave to amend lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such factors as "undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment." Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 1981). Nonetheless, Rule 15(a) evinces a liberal amendment policy and a motion to amend should not be denied absent a substantial reason to do so. See Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1998).
Applying the Rule 15 factors to the instant case, the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint. Upon inquiry by the Court as to how long the plaintiffs have known about the additional plaintiffs, the plaintiffs responded that they knew a few weeks before they moved to amend the petition. The Court finds that there was no undue delay in the plaintiffs' attempt to amend the petition.
Wal-Mart argues that the amendment would cause prejudice to them because they will be deprived of the opportunity to conduct a reasoned analysis of the new allegations and their appropriateness of a collective action, However, both parties agree that the nine proposed plaintiffs have been video — deposed and discovery has been exchanged with regards to the plaintiffs. Based upon the fact that Wal-Mart has been aware of these potential plaintiffs, and what their testimony will be, there will be no prejudicial impact on the Class Certification Hearing. Therefore, there is no substantial reason to deny leave to amend.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint (doc. #115) is GRANTED
To obtain a transcript of the proceedings for the Court's findings, the parties should contact Gaynell Banta, Court Recorder Supervisor, at 589-7720.