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 <freely
given.'
Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Here, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. #12) not to be in bad
faith, for purposes of delay, or for any suspect reason stated above. Thus, the Court will
grant the sought relief.
Plaintiffs in this case represent they intend the litigation to proceed as a class action,
albeit litigation in which the class has yet to be certified. When the representative plaintiffs
seek to enlarge the scope of the class from that which was originally pled, courts often
have found the amended complaint will not relate back to the original complaint. See Krinsk
v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d 1194, 1203 (11th Cir. 2011) (finding that when the
amended complaint greatly broadened the scope of the litigation, the defendant would be
unfairly prejudiced such that the defendant would be permitted to rescind its earlier waiver
to compel arbitration under the involved arbitration agreement); Senterfitt v. Suntrust
Mortgage, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379-81 (S.D. Ga. 2005) (finding the second
amended complaint did not relate back because the defendant would be unfairly prejudiced
by having to expand its defense to encompass the scope of the larger class). Here, the

2

Court advises counsel that the granting of this Motion does not speak to whether the
amended complaint may relate back to the original complaint (Doc. #1).
Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Join a Plaintiff and to Amend the Complaint

(Doc. #12) is GRANTED.
2.

The Clerk is directed to file the proposed “First Amended Complaint for

Damages, Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief,” which may be found at Docket Entry
12-2.
3.

If this case is not resolved as to Defendants Lee and Bull-Hit beforehand, said

Defendants shall respond to the First Amended Complaint by November 9, 2012.
4.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to send a copy of this Order with the First

Amended Complaint to Defendant Ronald Uzzle at his last known address by certified U.S.
Mail, with return receipt requested, and thereafter file notice with the Court verifying same.2
5.

Defendant Ronald Uzzle shall file a responsive pleading to the First Amended

Complaint not later than November 9, 2012.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 18th day of October, 2012.

Copies to all counsel of record
and pro se parties, if any

2

Whether Defendant Uzzle has been properly served the summons and the original
complaint is not addressed by this Order.
3