Tucker v. Chobani, LLC et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to amend (docket no. 16 ) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff is directed to file with the Clerk a First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
VIRGINIA G. TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-CV-345-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
CHOBANI, LLC a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, CHOBANI IDAHO,
LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to amend complaint filed by plaintiff Tucker.
The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will
grant the motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Tucker filed her complaint on August 21, 2017, claiming that she was
wrongfully terminated from her job as a Maintenance Technician with defendant
Chobani. The parties stipulated that the deadline for any amendments to pleadings would
be May 18, 2018, and the Court entered a Case Management Order adopting that
deadline. See Order (Dkt. No. 12). About a week before that deadline expired, Tucker
filed a motion to amend her complaint to add two new claims for retaliatory discharge.
In the amended allegations, Tucker alleges that she was fired after complaining to
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1
Chobani’s Human Resources Department, and to the Idaho Human Rights Commission.
She alleges that her retaliatory firing violated Title VII and the Idaho Human Rights Act.
Rule 15(a)(2) states that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” The policy underlying the liberal allowance of amendment is to facilitate a
proper decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities. Eldridge v.
Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir.1987). “Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to
pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” Id.
Chobani argues that Tucker had all the information necessary to plead retaliation
when she filed her initial complaint, and that she unduly delayed filing her motion. But
Tucker’s motion was timely under the deadline stipulated to by Chobani, and there is no
evidence that Chobani was prejudiced because Tucker did not file her motion earlier.
Chobani also argues that the amendment is futile because Chobani fired Tucker
before she complained to its Human Rights Department and the Idaho Human Rights
Commission, and thus could not have committed a retaliatory firing. But that is a
contested issue that cannot be resolved at this stage of the litigation – Tucker alleges that
she was fired after her complaints.
For all of these reasons, the Court will grant the motion to amend.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to amend
(docket no. 16) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff is directed to file with the Clerk a First
Amended Complaint.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2
DATED: July 2, 2018
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3
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?