Riley et al v. PK Management, LLC et al

Filing 292

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 286 Plaintiffs' Motion to Join Young Management Corporation as Defendant. Within ten days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend their Second Amended Class Action Complaint, attaching thereto a proposed pleading that names Young Management Corporation as a Defendant and includes all other amended allegations Plaintiffs intend to assert. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 4/29/2020. (ts)

Case 2:18-cv-02337-KHV-TJJ Document 292 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LEORA RILEY, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PK MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-2337-KHV-TJJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join Young Management
Corporation as Defendant (ECF No. 286). Plaintiffs seek to add a party Defendant due to a recent
change in property managers at the subject property. Young Management Corporation
(“Young”) is now the on-site property manager for Central Park Towers, and Plaintiffs assert
that in its absence, they could not obtain complete relief should they prevail in their claim for
injunctive relief. Defendants do not oppose the motion with respect to Count I of Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint (the injunctive relief claim), but they object to any amendment that
would purportedly revive class action non-injunctive relief claims asserted in Counts II through
VIII. Upon consideration of the matter, the Court finds the motion should be granted.
Background
On December 20, 2019, District Judge Vratil denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice.1 Consistent with the Phase I Scheduling Order entered in this

1

ECF No. 278.

1

Case 2:18-cv-02337-KHV-TJJ Document 292 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 5

case, the parties submitted a Phase II Planning Report and the undersigned Magistrate Judge
convened a Status Conference to address further scheduling. After hearing Plaintiffs’ plan for
managing the case and Defendants’ views on how to most efficiently proceed, the Court entered
a Preliminary Phase II Class Certification Scheduling Order.2 Plaintiffs had just recently learned
that Young was the new property manager, and counsel explained that regardless of whether or
how the complaint might be amended, Plaintiffs fully intended to continue pursuing injunctive
relief which would necessarily include Young’s management of Central Park Towers.
Defendants Aspen Companies Management, LLC and Central Park Holdings, LLC argued that
Young should be added to the case before Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint.
Although no commitment was made, several Defendants suggested they were unlikely to oppose
the addition of Young as a fellow Defendant. After considering the parties’ positions, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge entered an order employing the sequence Defendants proposed.
The order directs Plaintiffs to file their motion to add Young and, after obtaining a ruling on that
motion, to file their motion to intervene and amend regarding additional tenants and claims, as
well as their renewed motion for class certification.
Now, however, Aspen Companies Management, LLC and Central Park Holdings, LLC
object that the proposed Third Amended Complaint that accompanies Plaintiffs’ motion contains
the same claims on behalf of all class members that were asserted in Counts II – VIII of the
Second Amended Complaint. These Defendants argue that because Judge Vratil denied
certification of a class, Plaintiffs’ inclusion of these claims is futile and their motion should be

2

ECF No. 283.
2

Case 2:18-cv-02337-KHV-TJJ Document 292 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 5

denied. The remaining Defendants joined in the response.3 Essentially, Defendants complain that
Plaintiffs are following the two-step process that Defendants proposed and the Court ordered,
ignoring the second step in which Plaintiffs will seek to amend their complaint in light of Judge
Vratil’s order. In their reply, Plaintiffs deny they seek to revive class allegations that did not
survive Judge Vratil’s order.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of parties as defendants if (1) any
right to relief is asserted against the defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative; (2) the
requested relief arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and (3) the action involves any question of law or fact common to the defendants.4
The purpose of Rule 20 is “to avoid multiplicity of lawsuits and promote efficient justice.”5 The
court broadly construes the rule in favor of allowing joinder.6
Analysis
Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs will seek relief against Young and the current
Defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative. Nor do they dispute that Plaintiffs’ claims
arise out of the same occurrences and involve questions of common law and fact. Indeed,
Defendants do not argue that Young should not be a Defendant in this action. The Court finds
Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that joinder of Young is appropriate.

3

See ECF Nos. 288 (Central Park Investors, LLC) and 289 (PK Management, LLC).

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

5

Hall v. Witteman, No. 07–4128–SAC, 2008 WL 2949567, at *2 (D. Kan. July 30, 2008).

6

Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Nat’l Cable Tel. Cooperative, Inc., No. 10-2532-CM, 2011
WL 1430331, at *3 (D. Kan. Apr. 14, 2011).
3

Case 2:18-cv-02337-KHV-TJJ Document 292 Filed 04/29/20 Page 4 of 5

Defendants argue that, as drafted, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied as futile. However,
Rule 20(a)(2) does not provide for denial of joinder on the basis of futility of proposed claims.
Defendants’ argument is directed at what may appear to be an effort to add Young but not
conform their complaint to Judge Vratil’s ruling. Certainly a court may deny leave to amend a
pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 on the basis that the proposed
amendments would be futile.7 Determinations of amendment under Rule 15(a) and adding a
party pursuant to Rule 20 often go hand-in-hand.8 Indeed, the addition of Young as a party,
together with the limitations imposed by Judge Vratil’s ruling, will require Plaintiffs to amend
their Complaint, which they recognize. Plaintiffs explicitly state that “the purpose of this motion
[to join Young Management Corporation as Defendant] is exclusively to add Young as a
Defendant.”9 Presuming that the proposed Third Amended Complaint Plaintiffs will submit with
their motion to amend makes substantive changes to the class allegations, such a pleading is
unlikely to be futile.10
Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion to add Young Management
Corporation as a party Defendant. When Plaintiffs file their motion to amend their pleading, the
proposed Third Amended Complaint that accompanies the motion shall include all the changes
Plaintiffs intend to make, including asserting a mass tort and maintaining a claim for injunctive
class relief.

7

Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256, 1267 (10th Cir. 2010).

8

E.g., Wayman v. Accor v. N. Am., Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1285 (D. Kan. 2007).

9

Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 291) at 1.

10

The Court understands that Plaintiffs will also seek to join other tenants as Plaintiffs and assert
a mass tort theory.
4

Case 2:18-cv-02337-KHV-TJJ Document 292 Filed 04/29/20 Page 5 of 5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join Young Management
Corporation as Defendant (ECF No. 286) is GRANTED. Within ten days of the date of this
order, Plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend their Second Amended Class Action Complaint,
attaching thereto a proposed pleading that names Young Management Corporation as a
Defendant and includes all other amended allegations Plaintiffs intend to assert.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2020 at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge

5