Opinion
Civil Action 2:11-CV-983
10-10-2012
DAWN SNELLING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint ("Plaintiff's Motion to Amend"), Doc. No. 23. That motion also asks that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request to stay is DENIED as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dawn Snelling, acting on behalf of herself and a class of plaintiffs, seeks unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. , and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio R.C. § 4111.03. Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 1. On May 24, 2012, defendants ATC Healthcare Services Inc., and Nursemate, Inc., filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of the Complaint "to the extent that it seeks relief as a Collective Action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." Defendants' ATC Healthcare Services, Inc. and Nursemate, Inc. Combined Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings"), Doc. No. 14, p. 1.
On June 12, 2012, plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, seeking leave to amend the Complaint "to provide additional factual support" for her claims. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, p. 2. Plaintiff's new allegations include alleged similarities between herself and similarly situated people and actions allegedly taken by defendants or taken by plaintiff and similarly situated people. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that she and similarly situated people "provided nursing care to the various prisons throughout the state of Ohio," had "the same or similar [job duties] at each prison facility," and had a "Sunday through Saturday" work week. See Amended Complaint, attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend as Exhibit A, at ¶¶ 40-41, 44. According to the proposed Amended Complaint, defendants reduced the overtime rate of plaintiff and similarly situated people "to an amount below one and one-half times regular pay," defendants reduced hourly rates "for the sole reason of reducing . . . overtime rates to an amount less than one and one-half times their regular pay," and defendants told plaintiff and similarly situated people "that if they wanted to get their overtime pay they would have to sue and wait several years to get it." Id. at ¶¶ 53-54, 57. The proposed Amended Complaint further alleges that plaintiff is aware of at least 12 other nurses who were not paid the proper overtime rate by defendants, that defendants have admitted to failing to properly pay overtime, and that defendants have started sending checks to employees for "unpaid overtime." Id. at ¶¶ 60, 62-63.
Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion, arguing that the proposed amendment would be futile. Defendants ATC Healthcare Services, Inc. and Nursemate, Inc.'s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Motion to Stay Defendants' Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Defendants' Response"), Doc. No. 27, p. 1. Specifically, defendants argue that the proposed Amended Complaint alleges only legal conclusions and does not contain factual allegations of persons similarly situated to plaintiff. Id. at 2-3.
II. STANDARD
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend is governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a "court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "The thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle that cases should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings." Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)). The grant or denial of a request to amend a complaint is left to the broad discretion of the trial court. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such factors as "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of a 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." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
"A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Thiokol Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, Revenue Div. , 987 F.2d 376, 382-83 (6th Cir. 1993)). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon Steel Co. , 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). In determining whether dismissal on this basis is appropriate, a complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true. See Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 1996); Misch v. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., 896 F. Supp. 734, 738 (S.D. Ohio 1994). The United States Supreme Court has explained that "once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546 (2007). However, a plaintiff's claim for relief "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Id. Accordingly, a complaint must be dismissed - and amending a complaint is futile - if the complaint does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants' sole argument against leave to amend the Complaint is that the proposed amendment would be futile. See Defendants' Response, p. 1. Referring to arguments made in their motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendants argue that the proposed Amended Complaint contains only legal conclusions and lacks factual allegations that support the existence of persons similarly situated to plaintiff. Id. at 2-3. Thus, according to defendants, the proposed Amended Complaint does not state a cognizable collective cause of action. Id. at 1-2.
Defendants do not argue - either here or in Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - that plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead the claims asserted on her own behalf. Notably, the new allegations in the proposed Amended Complaint are not limited to the collective cause of action and they often address plaintiff's individual claims and the class claims within the same paragraph. See Amended Complaint, attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend as Exhibit A, at ¶¶ 52-57 (each alleging that plaintiff and similarly situated people either took the same action or had the same action taken against them by defendants). Because defendants do not argue that all claims are futile, and because the new allegations appear to apply to both plaintiff's individual claims and the collective claims, the Court cannot conclude that the proposed amendment would be futile.
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings does not seek dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims; rather, it seeks dismissal of the Complaint "to the extent that it seeks relief as a Collective Action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, p. 1.
In so holding, the Court expresses no opinion as to the validity of plaintiff's claims or whether plaintiff has stated a claim for relief as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
--------
Additionally, there is no indication that defendants would be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. There is no suggestion of bad faith on the part of plaintiff, this is the first amendment sought by plaintiff, and plaintiff does not seek to assert new claims or to add parties. There is also no indication that plaintiff's new factual allegations will unfairly recast the essential nature of the case. See Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 909 (6th Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend should not affect the discovery completion date or other case deadlines.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 23, is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which is attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 23, as Exhibit A.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay, Doc. No. 23, is DENIED as moot. With the filing of the Amended Complaint, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Doc. No. 14, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Partial Dismissal with Prejudice, Doc. No. 13, are both now moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove Doc. No. 13 and Doc. No. 14 from the Court's pending motions list.
_______________
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge