Perkins et al v. Federal Fruit & Produce Company, Inc. et al
Filing
223
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendant's #209 Motion to Require Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. By Judge James A. Parker on 12/2/13.(mnfsl, ) Modified on 12/3/2013 to correct spelling (mnfsl, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
RICHARD PERKINS and
RICHARD MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No. 11 CV 542 JAP/KBM
FEDERAL FRUIT & PRODUCE COMPANY, INC. and
MICHAEL MARTELLI,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND COMPLAINT
At the conclusion of a jury trial that began on May 16, 2012 and extended through May
25, 2012, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on all of their employment
discrimination and retaliation claims against Defendants. This included Plaintiff Richard
Perkins’ (Perkins) retaliatory discharge claim against Defendant Michael Martelli (Martelli) on
which the jury awarded Perkins $76,697 for compensatory damages and $150,000 punitive
damages. The Court granted Defendant Martelli’s post-trial motion for a new trial on Perkins’
retaliatory discharge claim against Martelli. See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO VACATE TRIAL AND
JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR A NEW TRIAL (Doc. No. 194).
During his trial testimony, Perkins recanted several significant allegations contained in
his AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND (Doc. No. 7) (Amended Complaint) that
were based on Perkins’ charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). While recanting some allegations Perkins, for the first time during his trial testimony,
added a startling new allegation. Most notably, Perkins testified that he prepared and filed a
1
grievance with his union about a verbal altercation between Perkins and Martelli in which
Martelli called Perkins a “nigger.” Importantly, Union representative Jesse Medina testified that
the grievance was sent to the FFP office. This grievance was crucial to Perkins’ claim that
Martelli, having received the grievance from the union, agreed to fire Perkins in retaliation for
Perkins’ submission of the grievance.
On October 4, 2013, both Defendants filed a motion seeking an order requiring Plaintiff
Perkins to file an amended complaint setting forth “clear, specific allegations as to the factual
basis of Perkins’ retaliation claim against Martelli.” See DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 209) (Motion) at 6. Although
the title of the Motion and its introductory paragraph state that both Defendants ask both
Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, it is clear from the body of the Motion that the only
requested amendment is clarification of Plaintiff Perkins’ retaliatory discharge claim against
Defendant Martelli. Plaintiffs responded to the Motion by simply arguing that an amended
complaint is unnecessary because Martelli already knows “the precise nature of the underlying
facts supporting Mr. Perkins’ retaliation claim against Defendant Martelli . . . .” PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND
COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 215) at 3.
The Court agrees with Defendant Martelli that Plaintiff Perkins should, before retrial,
state specifically and in detail the evidentiary basis of his retaliatory discharge claim against
Martelli because of surprise and confusion that resulted from Perkins’ testimony at trial. Martelli
specifically asked the Court to order Perkins to clearly articulate the protected activity that
Perkins will assert as the basis for his retaliatory discharge claim against Martelli.
2
Protected activity is the linchpin of a claim of retaliatory discharge. In Twigg v. Hawker
Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987, 989 (10th Cir. 2011), the Tenth Circuit outlined the
requirements for a claim by an employee that his employer discharged him in retaliation for an
employee’s legally protected activity. A claimant must prove that (1) he engaged in protected
activity; (2) he suffered adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection
between the protected activity and the adverse action. Id. To prove the third element, a claimant
must prove that the person who took the adverse action knew of the protected activity. Montes v.
Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160, 1176 (10th Cir. 2007). Prior to the retrial, as to each claimed
protected activity Perkins should summarize the evidence he will present, including the dates and
places of, the persons involved with, and the form and substance of statements made during the
protected activity, along with identifying relevant exhibits.
It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to manage cases, and trial judges have
broad latitude in deciding how best to do so. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
630-31 (1962) (recognizing trial court’s power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition
of cases); United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 988 (10th Cir. 1993) (stating, “[d]istrict
courts generally are afforded great discretion regarding trial procedure applications (including
control of the docket and parties), and their decisions are reviewed only for abuse of
discretion.”). The Court believes that instead of requiring another amended complaint, the better
approach is to have Perkins file, as part of a new proposed pretrial order that will govern the
retrial, a detailed statement of the facts in support of his retaliatory discharge claim against
Martelli. Hence, the Court will order Perkins to file by December 20, 2013—consistent with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11—such a new statement of facts supporting his retaliatory discharge claim.
And, the Court will order Martelli, in turn, to file by January 6, 2014, his defense, with
3
supportin facts, to Perkins’ resta claim. These will b incorporat into a co
ng
P
ated
be
ated
omplete new
w
pretrial order at a late date.
o
er
IT IS ORDER
T
RED that DE
EFENDANT MOTION TO REQU
TS’
N
UIRE PLAIN
NTIFFS TO
AMEND COMPLAI
D
INT (Doc. No. 209) is gr
N
ranted in par and denied in part as s
rt
d
stated above.
Entered on December 2, 2013.
E
2
SENIOR UN
NITED STA
ATES DISTR
RICT JUDG
GE
4
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?