Mills et al v. Sodexo, Inc.

Filing 46

ORDER: Plaintiffs' request to file a Second Amended Complaint 39 is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on or before March 8, 2013. Plaintiffs' request to amend to include a demand for punitive damages is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 25 and Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time 40 are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/4/2013. (LRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ANTHONY MILLS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-1319-T-33AEP

SODEXO, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 25), filed on
January 22, 2013, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint
(Doc. # 39), filed on February 28, 2013, and Plaintiffs’
Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. # 40), also filed on
February 28, 2013.

Defendants filed a Response in Opposition

to Plaintiffs’ Extension Motion (Doc. # 41) on March 1, 2013.
For

the

reasons

Plaintiffs’

that

request

to

follow,
file

a

the

Court

Second

grants

Amended

in

part

Complaint;

accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
and Plaintiffs’ related Extension Motion are denied as moot.
Discussion
Plaintiffs filed this action on June 12, 2012 (Doc. # 1)
and filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. # 11) on November 1,

2012,

containing

the

following

counts:

(1)

declaratory

judgment, (2) common law fraud in the inducement, (3) breach
of

settlement

agreement,

(4)

quantum

meruit,

and

(5)

retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida
Civil Rights Act.
On January 22, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. # 25). On February 1, 2013,
Plaintiffs sought and were granted an extension of time until
February 28, 2013, to respond to the Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.

(Doc.

##

27,

28). On

February

28,

2013,

Plaintiffs filed a timely Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc.
# 39), as well as Second Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #
40).

Plaintiffs request an extension of time to respond to

the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by seven days from
the date that this Court decides Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to Amend.
The
determines

Court
that

has
many

streamline this case.

evaluated
of

the

the

Motion

requested

to

Amend

amendments

and
will

For instance, Plaintiffs seek to drop

Kimberley Harris as a party, seek to clarify certain claims
(such

as

specifying

that

the

quantum

meruit

claim

is

predicated upon the April 16, 2010, layoff notice), and seek
-2-

to separate the FLSA and FCRA claims that are currently set
forth in a single count. These amendments are timely presented
and abundantly appropriate, and the Court is inclined to allow
them.
However, the Court determines that Plaintiffs’ request to
amend to include a demand for punitive damages should be
denied without prejudice. The issue of whether Plaintiffs may
include a demand for punitive damages should be briefed
separately and at a later date. Plaintiffs should set forth
their request for punitive damages in a separate motion after
the Court has ruled upon the dispositive motions.
Upon due consideration, the Court determines that best
way for this matter to proceed is to allow Plaintiffs to file
the Second Amended Complaint by March 8, 2013, excluding
Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Such an amendment
moots Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
Plaintiffs’ request for an extension to respond to the Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. If appropriate to do so,
Defendant may reassert the arguments presented in its Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings in response to Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiffs may reassert
their

request

for

punitive

damages

via

separate

motion

supported by citations to relevant authorities after the Court
resolves dispositive motions.
-3-

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiffs’ request to file a Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. # 39) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs may file an amended
complaint on or before March 8, 2013. Plaintiffs’ request to
amend to include a demand for punitive damages is DENIED
without prejudice. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. # 25) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of
Time (Doc. # 40) are DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 4th
day of March, 2013.

Copies:

All Counsel of Record

-4-