Lytle v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

Filing 342

ORDER: Plaintiff Lizeth Lytle's Motion to Add Party Defendant to ERISA Claims 254 is GRANTED. Lytle has until and including January 31, 2014, to file a third amended complaint adding the Administrative Committee of Lowe's Corporation, Inc. as a party defendant to this action. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/21/2014. (KNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LIZETH LYTLE, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent
to their inclusion in a
collective action,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-1848-T-33TBM

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC.;
LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.;
and LOWE’S HIW, INC.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court in consideration of
Plaintiff Lizeth Lytle’s Motion to Add Party Defendant to
ERISA Claims (Doc. # 254), which was filed on October 1, 2013.
Defendants Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., Lowe’s Companies, Inc.,
and Lowe’s HIW, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Lowe’s”)
filed a response in opposition (Doc. # 282) on October 18,
2013. After careful consideration, and for the reasons that
follow, Lytle’s Motion is granted.
I.

Background
On August 15, 2012, Lytle initiated this action against

Lowe’s Home Centers Inc. on behalf of herself and others

similarly situated. (Doc. # 1). Thereafter, on April 15, 2013,
Lytle filed an amended complaint naming Lowe’s HIW, Inc. as
a party defendant. (Doc. # 76). Subsequently, on July 5, 2013,
Lytle

filed

a

second

amended

complaint

adding

Lowe’s

Companies, Inc. as a party defendant. (Doc. # 186).
In the second amended complaint, Lytle asserts that
Lowe’s has:
willfully and intentionally engaged in a nationwide
pattern and practice of violating the provisions of
the [Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)], by
misclassifying Human Resources Managers as exempt
under the FLSA overtime wage provision, thereby
improperly failing and/or refusing to pay [Lytle]
and the Plaintiff Class, comprised of all current
and former similarly situated employees who work or
have worked over forty (40) hours per week,
overtime compensation pursuant to FLSA [29 U.S.C.
§§ 206-207].
(Id. at ¶ 60). Furthermore, Lytle adds additional counts
against

Lowe’s

alleging

violations

of

the

Employment

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). See (Doc.
# 186). The ERISA claims are based on the underlying FLSA
misclassification claim (Count I). Essentially, Lytle argues
that because she was allegedly not paid overtime, in violation
of

the

FLSA,

Lowe’s

did

not

make

all

of

contributions under the 401(k) plan. See id.

2 

the

required

On July 29, 2013, Lowe’s moved to dismiss Lytle’s second
amended complaint arguing that “[Lytle’s] ERISA claims are
not cognizable under the law and [Lytle] is not entitled to
recover the relief she seeks, nor is [Lytle] entitled to
recover relief from any of the Lowe’s defendants because none
of them is a proper party defendant as to these counts.” (Doc.
# 206). Noteworthy, Lowe’s motion to dismiss is still pending
before the Court.
On June 20, 2013, this Court entered a second amended
case management and scheduling order, which set November 20,
2013, as the deadline to add parties or to amend pleadings.1
(Doc. # 174). On October 1, 2013, Lytle timely filed the
present Motion seeking to add the Administrative Committee of
Lowe’s Companies, Inc. as a party defendant to the ERISA
claims. (Doc. # 254). Lowe’s filed a response in opposition
to the Motion on October 18, 2013. (Doc. # 282). The Court

1

A third amended case management and scheduling order was
issued on October 8, 2013, setting March 20, 2014, as the
deadline to add parties or amend pleadings; April 14, 2014,
as the deadline for filing dispositive motions; August 7,
2014, as the date for the final pre-trial conference, and
setting September 2014, as the trial term for this action.
(Doc. # 264).

3 

has reviewed the Motion and the responses thereto, and is
otherwise fully advised in the premises.
II.

Discussion
Lytle

seeks

to

add

the

Administrative

Committee

of

Lowe’s Corporation, Inc. as a party defendant to the ERISA
claims alleged in the second amended complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. See (Doc. # 254). Rule 21 provides “On
motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just
terms, add or drop a party.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. If,
however, the parties seek to add a party under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 21, courts generally use the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P.
15, governing amendments to pleadings, to determine whether
to allow the addition. See Datastrip Int'l Ltd. v. Intacta
Technologies, Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1318 (N.D. Ga.
2003)(citing Loggerhead Turtle v. Cnty. Council of Volusia
Cnty., 148 F.3d 1231, 1255 (11th Cir. 1998)); Frank v. U.S.
West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)(“A motion to
add a party is governed by [Rule] 15(a).”).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 provides that “The court should freely
give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a); see Shipner v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401,
407 (11th Cir. 1989)(“[U]nless a substantial reason exists to
deny leave to amend, the discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt

4 

is not broad enough to permit denial.”). As a result, there
must be a “justifying reason” for a court to deny leave to
amend. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). These
“justifying reasons” can include 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 other party, or futility. Id.
Lowe’s does not claim undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory
motive on the part of Lytle. Instead Lowe’s argument rests
solely on futility:
Because adding the [Administrative Committee of
Lowe’s Corporation, Inc.] does not cure the
deficiencies in [Lytle’s] Second Amended Complaint,
the amendment to add the [Administrative Committee
of Lowe’s Corporation, Inc.] would be futile and
should be denied on that basis.
(Doc. # 282 at 6).
Denial of leave to amend is justified on grounds of
futility

when

the

pleading,

as

amended,

is

subject

to

dismissal. See Halliburton & Assoc., Inc. v. Henderson, Few
& Co., 774 F.2d 441, 444 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Taylor v.
Fla. State Fair Auth., 875 F. Supp. 812, 815 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
(stating “leave to amend should only be denied on the ground

5 

of

futility

when

the

proposed

amendment

is

clearly

insufficient or frivolous on its face”).
Upon review, the Court does not find it apparent that
adding the Administrative Committee of Lowe’s Corporation,
Inc. as a party defendant to Lytle’s ERISA claims is futile.
Specifically, at this juncture, it is not evident that the
ERISA claims raised by Lytle are insufficient as a matter of
law and thus subject to dismissal. Therefore, in an effort to
fully develop the factual and legal arguments surrounding
this case and provide every party an adequate opportunity to
assert all allegations, claims, and defenses it may have, the
Court, in its discretion, grants Lytle’s request for leave to
add the Administrative Committee of Lowe’s Corporation, Inc.
as a party defendant in this action.
Further, the Court finds that to ensure clarity on the
record, the filing of a third amended complaint is warranted.
As such, Lytle has until and including January 31, 2014, to
file a third amended complaint adding the Administrative
Committee of Lowe’s Corporation, Inc. as a party defendant to
this action and setting forth ERISA claims against all party
defendants where applicable.
The Court clarifies that this Order has no impact on the
Court’s January 10, 2014, Order regarding Lytle’s amended

6 

motion for conditional certification of collective class and
issuance of notice. (Doc. # 340).
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff Lizeth Lytle’s Motion to Add Party Defendant
to ERISA Claims (Doc. # 254) is GRANTED.

(2)

Lytle has until and including January 31, 2014, to file
a third amended complaint adding the Administrative
Committee

of

Lowe’s

Corporation,

Inc.

as

a

party

defendant to this action.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
21st day of January, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

7