Blair et al v. Transam Trucking, Inc.
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 83 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 3/31/14. (df)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LARRY BLAIR, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________ )
Case No. 09-2443-EFM-DWB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 83.) Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to eliminate claims for unpaid
overtime under the Kansas Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law, K.S.A. §
44-312, et seq. (“KMWMHL”), and to factually clarify their remaining claims. For
the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their initial class action Complaint on August 21, 2009,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Kansas Wage
Payment Act (“KWPA”), and the Kansas Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours
Law (“KMWMHL”). (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed its initial Answer on October 14,
1
2009. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiffs were subsequently granted leave to file an Amended
Complaint, which they did on January 28, 2010. (Doc. 22.) Thereafter, Defendant
filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 23), which was denied by
Magistrate Judge Donald Bostwick on June 7, 2010 (Doc. 29).
The case was subsequently stayed pending a decision by the Kansas
Supreme Court in the matter of Brown v. Ford Storage and Moving Co. Inc., No.
09-101915-A. (See October 12, 2010, text entry.) The undersigned Magistrate
Judge entered a Scheduling Order on October 22, 2012. (Doc. 45.) Thereafter, the
case proceeded through discovery until the parties filed Motions for Summary
Judgment (Docs. 63, 64, 65, 66) in April, 2013, regarding the “threshold issue as to
whether Defendant had misclassified Plaintiffs as ‘independent contractors’. . . .”
(See Doc. 84, at 2.) These motions were denied by the District Court on November
13, 2013. (Doc. 77.)
Thereafter, another Scheduling Order was entered on January 8, 2014,
containing a deadline of February 28, 2014, to file any motions for leave to amend
the pleadings. (Doc. 81.) Plaintiffs’ motion is, therefore, timely filed.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” In
2
the absence of any apparent or declared reason, such as undue delay, undue
prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment, leave to
amend should be freely given, as required by the federal rule. Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Frank v. U.S. West,
Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993).
A court is justified in denying a motion to amend as futile if the proposed
amendment could not withstand a motion to dismiss or otherwise fails to state a
claim. Nkemakolam v. St. John’s Military School, 890 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1261-62
(D. Kan. 2012); Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992); see also 6
Wright, Miller & Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1487 at 642
(1990). In light of United States Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit has
restated the standard for ruling on motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6),
and now looks at what is described as a “plausibility” standard. Nkemakolam,
890 F.Supp.2d at 1262. As this Court explained the plausibility standard in
Nkemakolam,
the Supreme Court has recently ‘clarified’ this standard,
stating that ‘to withstand a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain enough allegations of fact ‘to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’
[Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242], at 1247 (quoting
3
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Specifically,
‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level,’ Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, so that ‘[t]he allegations must be
enough that, if assumed to be true, the plaintiff plausibly
(not just speculatively) has a claim for relief.’ Robbins,
519 F.3d at 1247. Under this standard, ‘a plaintiff must
nudge his claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss.’ Smith
[ v. U.S.], 561 F.3d [1090] at 1098 [(10th Cir.2009) ].
Therefore, a plaintiff must ‘frame a ‘complaint with
enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest’ that he
or she is entitled to relief.' Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955).
Id.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion is futile because, “[t]o the extent
Plaintiffs seek to add allegations for failure to pay Plaintiffs and/or the putative
class members minimum wage under KWPA, any such claims are preempted by
Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim.” (Doc. 85, at 4.) Plaintiff responds that “[t]he FLSA does
not expressly preempt the Plaintiffs’ proposed KWPA claims,” but rather “the
FLSA includes a reverse preemption ‘Savings Clause.’” (Doc. 86, at 3.) The Court
acknowledges that the Savings Clause indicates that Congress “did not foreclose
states from providing alternative remedies” to the FLSA. Bouaphakeo v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., 564 F.Supp.2d 870, 884 (N.D. Iowa 2008).
The Court finds that Defendant has not established the futility of Plaintiff’s
4
motion. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. In reaching this
conclusion, the undersigned Magistrate Judge is not, however, providing a ruling
on whether any such claim would be subject to a Motion to Dismiss, should such a
motion be filed by Defendant. Further, the undersigned Magistrate Judge is not
ruling as to whether Defendant should be allowed to file such a motion or, as
Plaintiff argues, this would constitute a second “bite at the apple” at such dismissal
arguments. Such issues, if raised, will need to be decided by the District Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint is hereby GRANTED. The amended pleading shall
be filed, in the form attached to Plaintiff’s motion, no later than April 14, 2014.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 31st day of March, 2014.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE
KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?