Smith et al v. Bulls-Hit Ranch and Farm, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 12 motion to amend/correct; granting 12 Motion for joinder. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris on 10/18/2012. (DLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION LEROY SMITH and DENNIS NASH, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO. 3:12-cv-449-J-34TEM BULLS-HIT RANCH AND FARM, THOMAS R. LEE, and RONALD UZZLE, Defendants. ___________________________________ ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Join a Plaintiff and to Amend the Complaint (Doc. #12, “Motion”), filed October 8, 2012. Plaintiffs seek leave to join Alfonso Grant as a plaintiff in this case and “to amend the complaint accordingly.” Motion at 1. Plaintiffs’ counsel avers counsel for Bulls-Hit Ranch and Farm (“Bulls-Hit”) and Thomas R. Lee (“Lee”) have consented to the joinder and the amendment of the complaint.1 Motion at 2. Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel advises it has been unable to ascertain if substituted service of process has been effected upon Defendant Ronald Uzzle, who has not been personally served in this case. See id. Review of the Motion and the proposed amended complaint reveals Plaintiffs seek to expand the scope of this purported class action to include “claims of workers whom Uzzle contracted to furnish to any agricultural 1 Plaintiffs’ counsel also states that Defendants Lee and Bulls-Hit have entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve all of the plaintiffs’ claims against them, as well as identical claims of a worker, Alfonso Grant.” Motion at 1-2. employers in the relevant period, not just those whom Uzzle furnished to Lee and Bulls-Hit.” Id. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In the language of the Foman Court, In the absence of any apparent or declared reason–such 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, futility of amendment, etc.– the leave sought should, as the rules require, be