Byorick v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint in Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. No later than February 4, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a corrected version of her Second Amended Complaint that features the current caption and refers to CAS, Inc. instead of Wyle Laboratories, Inc, when appropriate, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 1/22/15.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–02200–WJM–KMT
THERESE BYORICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAS, INC., and
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint in Response
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. No. 23, filed Oct. 27, 2014.) Defendant CAS, Inc. 1
does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. Defendant Northrup Gruman Systems
Corporation (“Northrup”) does oppose Plaintiff’s Motion and therefore filed its Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend on November 20, 2014. (Doc No. 44.) Plaintiff did
not file a reply.
Plaintiff seeks to amend her Amended Complaint in response to Northrup’s Motion to
Dismiss, which argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under Title VII because Plaintiff was
not an employee of Northrup, nor was Northrup Plaintiff’s joint employer with CAS, Inc. (See
1

Defendant CAS was previously identified as Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (See Am. Compl., Doc.
No. 10.) On November 20, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Change
Defendant Wyle’s Name and amended the caption to substitute CAS, Inc. for Wyle Laboratories,
Inc. (Minute Order, Doc. No. 42.)

Doc. No. 22.) Plaintiff seeks to address the issues raised by Northrup’s Motion to Dismiss by
adding additional allegations through her proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 231.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “[t]he court should freely give leave
[to amend the pleadings] when justice so requires.” See also York v. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No.
5, 232 F.R.D. 648, 649 (D. Colo. 2005); Aspen Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, LLC v. Aspen
Valley Hosp. Dist., 353 F.3d 832, 842 (10th Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court has explained the
circumstances under which denial of leave to amend is appropriate.
If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper
subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the
merits. 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 “freely given.” Of course, the grant or
denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court,
but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for
the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and
inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Triplett v. LeFlore County, Okl., 712 F.2d
444, 446 (10th Cir. 1983).
At the time Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend, this case was in its relative infancy.
Indeed, at that time, the court had not yet held a Scheduling Conference, at which the court is
required to set a deadline for amending the pleadings and joining parties. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(a)(3)(A). Although the court has since held a Scheduling Conference, Plaintiff’s Motion is
plainly timely under the December 22, 2014 deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of

2

pleadings set forth in the Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 30, at § 9a.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend is not unduly delayed.
Northrup nevertheless argues that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments should be rejected as
futile because the proposed Second Amended Complaint still fails to establish that Northrup was
her employer, or that Northrup was her joint-employer with CAS, Inc. The court acknowledges
that it may deny leave to amend if the proposed amendments fail to state a plausible claim for
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Moody’s
Investor’s Servs., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); Gohier v. Enright, 186
F.3d 1216, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999).
However, the court declines to resolve whether Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
would be futile as to Northrup. First, Northrup does not maintain that it would face any—let
alone undue—prejudice if Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are permitted. See Stender v.
Cardwell, No. 07-cv-02503-WJM-MJW, 2011 WL 1235414, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2011)
(Martinez, J.) (citing Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2006))
(prejudice to the opposing party is the single most important factor in deciding whether to allow
leave to amend and, in its absence, an opposition to a motion to amend is “grievously
weakened”).
Second, District Judge William J. Martinez’s Practice Standards provide:
In my view the overuse of motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in
this District unreasonably delays the progress of civil litigation. Motions brought
pursuant to this Rule are strongly discouraged if the defect is correctable by the filing of
an amended pleading. Counsel should confer prior to the filing of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to determine whether the deficiency (e.g., failure to plead fraud with specificity) can be
corrected by amendment, and should exercise their best efforts to stipulate to appropriate
amendments. If such a motion is nonetheless filed, counsel for the movant shall include
3

in the motion a conspicuous statement describing the specific efforts undertaken to
comply with this Practice Standard.

(WJM Practice Standards, III.D.1.) Northrup’s Motion to Dismiss features the “conspicuous
statement” required by Judge Martinez’s practice standards. More specifically, Northrup
asserts that because the defect detailed in its Motion to Dismiss—i.e., that Northrup was not
Plaintiff’s employer and therefore Plaintiff does not have a remedy under Title VII—cannot
be corrected by the filing of a motion to dismiss, the parties were unable to stipulate to an
amendment of pleading that would eradicate the need for the Motion to Dismiss. (Mot.
Dismiss at 1-2.)
However, Plaintiff’s present Motion makes clear that she disagrees that the defect cannot
be corrected by an amended pleading. Notably, Plaintiff has included an additional thirty-four
allegations regarding whether Northrup jointly employed her with CAS, Inc. Further, as
previously discussed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend was filed very early in this litigation. Had
Northrup simply acquiesced to the filing of an amended pleading—notwithstanding its belief that
these additional allegations were still insufficient to overcome its Rule 12(b)(6) argument—it
could have avoided the piecemeal approach it has taken here—namely a Motion to Dismiss and a
separate Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend that separately address the exact
same issue.
Accordingly, the court finds that instead of forcing a futility argument into its Rule 15(a)
opposition brief, Northrup will be better served by waiting to file a renewed motion under Rule
12(b)(6) after Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is in place as the operative pleading that
consolidates the arguments raised in its Motion to Dismiss and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
4

Amend. See General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Steelwise, LLC, No. 07-cv-01145-DMEKMT, 2008 WL 2520423, at *4 (D. Colo. June 20, 2008) (noting that a Rule 15(a) futility
argument often places the cart before the horse).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint in Response to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED. No later than February 4, 2015, Plaintiff
shall file a corrected version of her Second Amended Complaint that features the current
caption and refers to CAS, Inc. instead of Wyle Laboratories, Inc, when appropriate.
Dated this 22nd day of January, 2015.

5