Falk v. HP Inc.

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (Dkt. 14 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint as soon as reasonably practicable, and within five (5) days of this Order being entered. Defendant s hall file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint within 14 days of it being filed. 2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 9 ) and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 10 ) are DENIED as moot. 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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
KEVIN FALK,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00401-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
HP INC. a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. 14),
and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Cause of Action (Dkt. 9) and Motion to
Strike (Dkt. 10). The motions are fully briefed, and the Court finds these matters
appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons described below, the
Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and deny Defendant’s motions as moot.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges violations of the Age Discrimination and
Employment Act (“ADEA”), the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), the
Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA-AA”), and the Idaho Human Rights
Act (“IHRA”), as well as other state law claims. Compl. ¶1, Dkt 1. On January 17, 2018,
Defendant timely filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action, Motion
to Dismiss, Dkt. 9, and a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages under

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Idaho state law, Motion to Strike, Dkt. 10. Defendant filed an Answer on January 18,
2018. Answer, Dkt. 12.
On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint. Motion to
Amend, Dkt. 14. Plaintiff agreed to remove the second cause of action, and to strike his
claims for punitive damages under Idaho law. See Pl.’s Br., Dkt, 14-1. Defendant
objected, and the parties briefed all three motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days
after service of a responsive pleading or . . . motion under Rule 12(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1)(B). Otherwise, a party may amend its pleading with the consent of the other
party or with leave from the court. Id. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.” Id.
On motion by a party, “the court may strike from a pleading . . . any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Id. 12(f). Motions to strike are
“disfavored” because they are often “sought by the movant simply as a dilatory or
harassing tactic.” 5C Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller. Federal Practice &
Procedure, § 1380 (3d ed. 2012).
Under Idaho law, “no claim for damages shall be filed containing a prayer for
relief seeking punitive damages.” Idaho Code § 6-1604(2). Instead, “a party may,
pursuant to a pretrial motion and after hearing before the court, amend the pleadings to
include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.” Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

ANALYSIS
1.

Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains a prayer for relief seeking punitive and liquidated

damages. See Compl. at 12. Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s claims for
punitive damages under Idaho law, pursuant to Idaho Code § 6-1604(2). See Motion to
Strike, Dkt. 10. As indicated by the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and his
proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has agreed only to pursue punitive damages
under federal law at this stage. See Pl.’s Br. at 2, Dkt. 14-1; Proposed Am. Compl. at 12,
Dkt. 14-3. Defendant does not object. Def.’s Reply at 2-3, Dkt. 19. As such, the Court
will grant Plaintiff’s motion as to punitive damages, and will deny Defendant’s Motion to
Strike as moot.
2.

Motion to Dismiss Second Cause of Action
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action, which seeks

damages for violations under the OWBPA. See Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 9. Pursuant to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and his proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has
agreed to drop the Second Cause of Action. See Pl.’s Br. at 2, Dkt. 14-1; Proposed Am.
Compl. at ¶ 1, 50-56. Defendant does not object to the proposed removal. As such, the
Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion as to the Second Cause of Action, and will deny
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as moot.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

3.

Motion to Amend
Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend on the grounds that it does not

strike paragraphs 41-43 of the Complaint. See, Def.’s Br. at 4-5, Dkt. 21. Defendant
argues that these paragraphs must be struck because they constitute a “restatement of the
core allegations” of Plaintiff’s OWBPA claim. Id. at 5. According to Defendant, this
renders Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend futile, because the First Amended Complaint would
retain a claim subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. The Court disagrees.
Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint does not assert a claim under the
OWBPA. The claim is not retained merely because factual allegations relevant to that
claim remain in the proposed First Amended Complaint.
Defendant further argues that the factual allegations in paragraphs 41-43 are not
relevant to any other claim asserted by Plaintiff, and thus must be stricken. Id. at 6. The
facts alleged in these paragraphs suggest Defendant has a practice of noncompliance with
their statutory obligation to ensure employees have notice of their rights under the
ADEA. Such evidence is probative of whether Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under
the ADEA, which remains at issue in the proposed First Amended Complaint. The Court
will not find these allegations irrelevant simply because they may not support a claim for
relief standing alone.
Finally, Defendant argues that allowing Plaintiff to retain the allegations made in
paragraphs 41-43 would prejudice Defendant by opening them to “extensive, expensive
discovery.” Def.’s Reply at 9, Dkt. 21. The fact that the allegations at issue may lead to

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

discovery is not sufficient reason strike them. Nor would it be appropriate for the Court to
consider whether discovery on these facts would be unduly burdensome at this time.
Should Defendant find the need to object to discovery related to these allegations, they
may do so on the basis of the specific discovery requested, after following the procedures
outlined in Local Rule 37.1 and Section 9 of the Case Management Order (Dkt. 25). For
these reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his

First Amended Complaint as soon as reasonably practicable, and within five (5) days of
this Order being entered. Defendant shall file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint
within 14 days of it being filed.
2.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 9) and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 10) are

DENIED as moot.

DATED: May 4, 2018

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5