Allen et al v. Diversicare Leasing Corp. et al
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 18 Motion for Leave to File First Amended and Substituted Complaint. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on June 1, 2015. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ROBERTA ALLEN, et al.
CASE NO. 14-CV-1065
DIVERSICARE LEASING CORP.,
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs’ First Amended and
Substituted Complaint. (ECF No. 18). Defendants have responded. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiffs
have filed a reply. (ECF No. 21). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint
(ECF No. 12) in which they make many of the same arguments that they make in their Response
to Plaintiffs’ Motion. Plaintiffs have responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
13). These matters are ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint to add certain Plaintiffs’ places of employment,
job titles, and add further factual allegations.
Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss and
Response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend contend that the Complaint and proposed
Amended Complaint do not satisfy the pleading requirements required by the Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
A district court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, there is no absolute or automatic right to amend. Deutsche
Financial Servs. Corp. v. BCS Ins. Co., 299 F.3d 692, 700 (8th Cir. 2002). A court may properly
deny a party’s motion to amend its complaint because of futility of the amendment, bad faith,
undue delay, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, and undue
prejudice to the non-moving party. Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.
First, Defendants contend that the shortcomings of Plaintiffs’ original Complaint are not
remedied by the addition of job titles and places of employment for some Plaintiffs in the
Amended Complaint. They assert that Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient facts to support their
claims in the proposed Amended Complaint and therefore the amendment is futile. Second,
Defendants cite cases from other circuits holding that, in light of Iqbal and Twombly, a plaintiff
who brings an FLSA claim must make factual allegations providing a plausible approximation of
hours that they worked uncompensated overtime. Third, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’
Motion is futile because the Amendment is subject to dismissal for misjoinder.
As to the general sufficiency of allegations, the Court finds them adequate. Plaintiffs
proposed Amended Complaint adds some Plaintiffs’ job titles and places of employment. The
proposed Amended Complaint makes more factual allegations than were in the original
Complaint, and the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. Thus, the Amended Complaint is not futile.
The Court will next address the approximation of hours. The Eighth Circuit has not
addressed pleading requirements in a complaint for overtime under the FLSA since the Supreme
Court held in Iqbal and Twombly that, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the factual
allegations in a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678; (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). At
least one other U.S. District Court in the Eighth Circuit has concluded that Iqbal and Twombly
“addressed a plaintiff’s obligation to plead a sufficient basis for the defendant’s liability, not a
plaintiff’s obligation to plead the extent of that liability.” Davis v. Bd. of Trustees of N. Kansas
City Hosp., No. 14-0625-CV-W, 2015 WL 881516, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 2, 2015). Requiring
the Plaintiffs to plead an approximation of hours they worked for uncompensated overtime
would inform the extent of liability, not the basis of liability. Furthermore, the number of
overtime hours worked is “a component of damages and not an element of the cause of action.”
Id. Therefore, Plaintiffs Proposed Amendment is not futile because it lacks an approximation of
uncompensated overtime hours.
As to the issue of misjoinder, the Court is aware of authority in other circuits where
plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed for misjoinder when plaintiffs filed their action after the
decertification of an FLSA collective action. In such cases, the courts typically dismiss all
plaintiffs except the first named plaintiff for improper joinder. However, the Court can find no
authority in the Eighth Circuit supporting such an approach. The Court agrees with Defendants
that this action stems from the decertification of Hamilton, in which the Court found that there
was no uniform policy that violated the FLSA. Hamilton v. Diversicare Leasing Corp., No.
1:12-CV-1069, 2014 WL 4955799, at *4 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 1, 2014). Nevertheless, the potential
issue of misjoinder does not render Plaintiffs’ Amendment futile. Defendants can move to sever
Plaintiffs’ claims at a later stage of this litigation, or confer with the Court about separate trial
groups. See Allen v. Pulaski Cnty., No. 4:10CV1514, 2012 WL 32640, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 6,
2012) (denying defendant’s motion to sever where action was filed after decertification of FLSA
collective action, but indicating that the court would confer with parties regarding the possibility
of separate trial groups).
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Plaintiffs’ First Amended and Substituted Complaint (ECF No. 18) should be and hereby is
GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 12)
should be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of June, 2015.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?