Wittman et al v. Olin Winchester, LLC
ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 40 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 5/18/2023. (mah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MYLDRINE CLARK, and
ROBERT HARTMAN, JR.,
OLIN WINCHESTER, LLC
Case No. 22-cv-966-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Donnie Wittman, Corlis Mitchell, Dedria Cooley, Myldrine Clark, and Robert
Hartman, Jr., current supervisory employees of Defendant Olin Winchester LLC (“Winchester”),
filed suit in state court alleging that Winchester has failed to properly pay them overtime for work
in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), 820
ILCS 101/1, et seq., the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”), 820 ILCS
115/14(a), and state common law. Following removal, the Court granted in part Winchester’s
motion to dismiss and dismissed the IWPCA and common law claims without prejudice (Doc. 31).
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 40), which Winchester opposes (Doc. 41).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), after a party has amended its pleading once
by right, that party may amend the pleading again only by leave of court or by written consent of
the adverse party. While Rule 15(a) is discretionary, leave to amend should be granted absent any
evidence of bad faith, dilatory motive, undue delay, unfair prejudice to the opposing party, or
Page 1 of 2
unless it is certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be futile or otherwise
unwarranted. See Jackson v. Rockford Housing Authority, 213 F.3d 389, 390 (7th Cir. 2000);
Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago & Nw. Indiana, 786 F.3d 510, 519–20
(7th Cir. 2015). Winchester asserts that the proposed amended complaint is futile because
Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts supporting an IWPCA claim.
Because the existence of clear futility at the outset of a case are rare, the “better practice is
to allow at least one amendment regardless of how unpromising the initial pleading appears
because except in unusual circumstances it is unlikely that the court will be able to determine
conclusively on the face of a defective pleading whether plaintiff actually can state a claim.”
Runnion ex rel. Runnion, 786 F.3d at 519–20 (quoting 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (2d ed. 1990). Here, there is no appearance of undue delay,
unfair prejudice, bad faith, or dilatory motive by Plaintiffs, and the Court cannot conclude from
the face of the proposed Amended Complaint that amendment would be futile or otherwise
unwarranted. Winchester’s contention that Plaintiffs’ allegations do not adequately state a claim
for relief may appropriately be raised by a motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 18, 2023
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2
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?