HOFFMAN et al v. JACOBI et al

Filing 169

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 154 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED and joinder of the five new Plaintiffs is appropriate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's second amended complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this order. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 5/6/2016. (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

DESTINY HOFFMAN, NATHAN
CLIFFORD, JOSHUA FOLEY, JESSE
HASH, ASHLEIGH SANTIAGO, JAMES
BENNETT, AMY BENNETT, LEE
SPAULDING, MICHAEL CAMPBELL,
AMY TUTTLE, AMANDA CAMPBELL,
BOBBY UPTON, SHANE BRATCHER
(formerly “COURTNEY COWHERD”);
JUSTIN LANHAM, TRENTNEY RHODES,
JOANIE WATSON on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SUSAN KNOEBEL, JEREMY SNELLING,
HENRY FORD, DANNY RODDEN,
DANIELLE GRISSETT, STEPHEN
MASON, UNKNOWN CLARK COUNTY
WORK RELEASE EMPLOYEE(S), CLARK
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
JOSH SEYBOLD, WHITNEY NEWTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-cv-00012-SEB-TAB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs seek to join the claims of five new Plaintiffs to this action. Defendants present
the Court with two issues: (1) whether Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is timely; and (2)
whether the five proposed Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. The
Court finds in favor of Plaintiffs on both issues and grants Plaintiffs’ motion. [Filing No. 154.]
There are currently 16 Plaintiffs in this case. The original deadline for joining additional
Plaintiffs was September 8, 2014. [Filing No. 44, at ECF p. 5.] However, on December 8, 2015,

the District Judge denied class certification and re-opened the deadline for adding additional
Plaintiffs. The District Judge directed Plaintiffs’ counsel to “proceed promptly to add them as
Plaintiffs to allow this case to go forward.” [Filing No. 127, at ECF p. 3.] On March 23, 2016,
Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to add the claims of five new Plaintiffs. [Filing No. 154.]
A party may amend its pleading with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend is not automatic and courts “have broad
discretion to deny leave to amend where there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the defendants, or where the amendment would be
futile.” Standard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011). Courts should freely give leave
to amend a pleading; denying a motion for leave to amend a complaint is disfavored. Bausch v.
Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010).
A party may join new plaintiffs to a lawsuit if they assert a right to relief that arises out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and there is a common
question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. In doing so, the Court has wide discretion and may
consider other relevant factors to determine whether joinder will comport with the principles of
fundamental fairness. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F3d 612, 632 (7th Cir.2001). Federal
policy favors joinder unless it would create prejudice, expense, or delay. Id.; Broadstone v.
Sherman’s Place, Inc., No. 115CV01453JESJEH, 2016 WL 199395, at *2 (C.D. Ill. 2016).
First, Plaintiffs’ motion is timely. Plaintiffs argue they should be allowed to amend the
complaint in light of the District Judge’s instruction that Plaintiffs’ counsel should “proceed
promptly to add [new Plaintiffs].” [Filing No. 127, at ECF p. 3.] Defendants contend Plaintiffs
failed to act “promptly.” Defendants argue that adding Plaintiffs now will cause undue delay and
prejudice. Understandably, Defendants want to move forward with the litigation, but Plaintiffs’

2

waiting 15 weeks to file this motion was reasonably “prompt” under the circumstances. See
McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., 760 F.3d 674, 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The underlying
concern is the prejudice to the defendant rather than simple passage of time.”). While adding
new Plaintiffs at this point in the litigation will require some or all case management deadlines to
be reset, no trial date has been set. Adding these Plaintiffs complies with the District Judge’s
order. And prior to that order, this case sat fairly inactive for over a year. Defendants do not
object to litigating the claims of the new five Plaintiffs. [Filing No. 156, at ECF p. 9.] Making
those Plaintiffs bring separate suits would make everyone start over, increasing costs, and
duplicating efforts. In light of these facts, moving for leave to add five new Plaintiffs 15 weeks
after the District Judge’s order was not unreasonable and will not cause undue delay or prejudice.
Second, the proposed claims arise out of the same series of occurrences. The new
Plaintiffs are five Clark County Drug Treatment Program participants who allege the same
overall scheme as the current Plaintiffs, except that the facts differ regarding their individual
arrests, detentions, and incarcerations.1 Different factual allegations will not alter this action
because each of the current 16 Plaintiffs also have their own specific factual allegations. Joinder
is appropriate because both proposed and current Plaintiffs present the factual similarities of
participating in the Clark County Drug Treatment Program and being subject to the Drug Court’s
procedures. These Plaintiffs also present the common claims that Defendants violated their due
process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, excessive bail and cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and unreasonable searches and seizures under the

The Court acknowledges Defendants’ concern that the false arrest claim by one of the new
Plaintiffs may present unique circumstances that arise out of a different transaction or
occurrence. However, Defendants only note this is a possibility. To address this potential
concern, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice for Defendants to move to sever
the false arrest claim in the event that more focused briefing is required.
1

3

Fourth Amendment. Joining the five new Plaintiffs’ claims to the current action will avoid
duplication of efforts, the risk of inconsistent rulings, and relitigation of issues because they arise
out of the same series of occurrences in the Clark County Drug Court and Treatment Program
and present similar questions of law. For these reasons, joinder is appropriate.
In conclusion, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is timely and will not prejudice
Defendants. The claims of the new five Plaintiffs arise out of the same series of occurrences and
present similar legal questions as the claims of the current 16 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ motion for
leave to amend [Filing No. 154] is therefore granted and joinder of the five new Plaintiffs is
appropriate. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint is deemed filed as of the
date of this order. [Filing No. 154-3.]
Date: 5/6/2016

_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

4

Distribution:
Douglas Alan Hoffman
CARSON BOXBERGER
[e-mail]
Jonathan Paul Nagy
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
James Michael Bolus, Jr.
JAMES M. BOLUS, JR. P.S.C.
[e-mail]
R. Jeffrey Lowe
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP-New Albany
[e-mail]
Whitney Elizabeth Wood
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY, LLP-New Albany
[e-mail]
Brian P. Butler
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN BUTLER
[e-mail]
Michael A. Augustus
MICHAEL A. AUGUSTUS, PSC
[e-mail]
David A. Arthur
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Brennan Soergel
SOERGEL LAW OFFICE PLLC
[e-mail]
Rosemary L. Borek
STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
[e-mail]
Wayne E. Uhl
STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER
[e-mail]
5