Summary
granting plaintiff's motion to add successor company to age discrimination suit and finding sufficient plaintiff's successor liability allegations that successor company employed many of the predecessor's managers and employees
Summary of this case from Cuervo v. Airport Servs., Inc.Opinion
Case No. 8:02-CV-2082-T-27MAP.
January 30, 2004
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 19). Upon consideration, Plaintiff's motion is granted.
Introduction
Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to drop Dreamtime Operations Services, Inc. as a party and to sue Defendant Twiss Transport, Inc. as successor to Largo Transportation, Inc. d/b/a KTL Truck Lines, Sandy's Dream, Inc. and KTL, Inc. (Dkt. 19). Defendant Twiss Transport, Inc. ("Twiss") opposes the amendment on the grounds that it is futile and maintains that Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend has been "unduly delayed." (Dkt. 21).
Applicable Standards
When a motion for leave to amend is filed beyond the time prescribed by a court's scheduling order, the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) are applicable. Thorn v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 308, 309 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Under Rule 16(b), a party seeking to deviate from court ordered deadlines must demonstrate good cause why the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the movant's diligent efforts. Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998); Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 (advisory committee's note). Once good cause is shown, the court considers whether leave should be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418.
Under Rule 15, leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." There must be a "justifying reason" for a court to deny leave to amend. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Leave to amend should only be denied when: (1) amendment would be futile; (2) amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party; or (3) there has been bad faith, undue delay, dilatory motive, or repeat failures to cure deficiencies by amendments on behalf of the moving party. Id. Leave to amend is futile if the proposed amendment cannot withstand a motion to dismiss. See Florida Power Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 85 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996); Moore v. Baker, 989 F.2d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 1993).
A court should not grant a motion to dismiss "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (citations omitted);accord South Florida Water Management Dist. v. Montalvo, 84 F.3d 402, 406 (11th Cir. 1996). The court will accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and will view them in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The threshold is "exceedingly low" for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ancata v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir. 1985).
Discussion
Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend the Complaint within the deadline prescribed by the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. See (Dkts. 5,19). As a result, Rule 15 applies and leave to amend will be granted unless the proposed amendments are futile and the result of undue delay.
The Case Managment and Scheduling Order provides that the deadline for motions to amend pleadings is 10 days after the discovery cut-off date. (Dkt. 5). The discovery cut-off date for this case was January 9, 2004. Id. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Amend on January 6, 2004, within the Court's deadline. (Dkt. 19).
Plaintiff seeks to sue Defendant Twiss as successor to Largo Transportation, Inc. d/b/a KTL Truck Lines, Sandy's Dream, Inc. and KTL, Inc. (Dkt. 19). According to the First Amended Complaint, in June 2001 Plaintiff was employed as a road commercial truck driver with Largo Transportation, Inc., d/b/a KTL Truck Lines ("Largo"). (Dkt. 19, Ex. A, Proposed First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-15). He was 74 years old at the time. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 22. Plaintiff alleges that in July 2001 Largo told him that he was being discharged because its liability insurance carrier would not provide coverage for Plaintiff due to his age. Id. at ¶ 19.
In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to establish that Defendant Twiss is liable for Largo's alleged conduct as a successor. There is "no single definition of `successor' which is applicable in every legal context." In re National Airlines, Inc., 700 F.2d 695, 698 (11th Cir. 1983) (quoting Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Bd., 417 U.S. 249, 262 n. 9 (1974)). The test for successor liability is fact specific and must be conducted in light of the facts of each case and the particular legal obligation at issue. Id. To determine successor liability, courts consider factors including "the extent to which the successor corporation essentially continues the operations of the former corporation and whether the new corporation had notice of the former corporation's practices and policies. . . ." Id. at 698.
Plaintiff has alleged that Twiss purchased trucks and trailers from Largo and has continued the business operations of Largo. (Dkt. 19, Ex. A, ¶ 6). Additionally, many of the managers and supervisors that were formerly employed with Largo were hired by Twiss. Id. Twiss has allegedly hired "approximately 80% of its work force from persons previously employed" by Largo. Id. These allegations are sufficient at this early stage to meet the "exceedingly low" standard of stating a claim that would entitle Plaintiff to relief. It cannot be said that it "appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). As such, Plaintiff's claims are not futile.
Additionally, no undue delay exists since Plaintiff sought leave to amend the Complaint prior to the deadline established by the Court. See (Dkt. 5). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. Defendant shall respond to the First Amended Complaint within fifteen (15) days thereafter.