York, et al v. Advocates for Juvenile and Adult Rights, Inc.

Filing 73

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 61 motion for leave to file amended complaint is hereby DENIED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 1/29/2018. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

YORK, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-12487

ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE AND ADULT RIGHTS

SECTION "L" (3)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. R. Doc. 61.
Defendant responded in opposition. R. Doc. 64. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on
January 29, 2018. Having heard the parties’ arguments and reviewed the applicable law, the
Court issues this Order & Reasons.
I.

BACKGROUND
This case involves a claim for unpaid wages and interest under the Fair Labor Standards

Act (“FLSA”) and Louisiana Wage Payment Act (“LWPA”). Plaintiffs Beverly York and Linda
Wilson were employed by defendant Advocates for Juvenile and Adults Rights, Inc. as personal
care aides (later re-titled Direct Service Workers). R. Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs claim they were
required to work overtime, were not compensated for wait time between job assignments, were
not reimbursed for travel costs, and were charged for equipment, uniforms, and required
certification and licensing. R. Doc. 1 at 5-7. Plaintiffs also allege defendants did not comply with
the record-keeping provisions of the FLSA and wrongfully deducted or failed to pay wages as
required by Louisiana law. R. Doc. 1 at 6, 8. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees. R. Doc. 1 at 7. Plaintiffs seek class certification
on the grounds that the people comprising the class are geographically diverse, the class is
1

ascertainable and identifiable, the questions of law and fact are common to all members, the claims
are typical of the class claims, Plaintiffs have no interest antagonistic to those of the class, and the
common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members. R. Doc. 1 at 9-10.
Defendant timely answered the complaint and admitted that certain employees including
Plaintiffs had been underpaid and were currently receiving restitution. R. Doc. 8 at 2. Furthermore,
Defendant avers that Plaintiffs’ claims are time barred, fail to state a cause of action, and fail to
meet the necessary requirements for class certification. R. Doc. 8 at 4-5. Further, Defendant argues
any state law claims are preempted by FLSA, and this Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. R. Doc. 8 at 8. Defendant raises the Port-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. §
260, as a defense barring Plaintiff’s claims because the acts or omissions were done in good faith
and in reasonable belief that they were not a violation of the FLSA. R. Doc. 8 at 6. Finally,
Defendant denies being responsible for portions of the payments Plaintiffs demand. R. Doc. 8 at
7.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to certify class and proceed with a collective action under FLSA
in November 2016. R. Doc. 11. The Court denied the Motion, as Plaintiffs had not submitted
sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a class. However, Plaintiffs were given leave
to submit additional information. On April 27, 2017, the Court granted the Motion for conditional
class certification under FLSA, and ordered that Defendants produce “a complete list of all persons
employed by AJAR as DSW personnel who worked at AJAR between April 22, 2012 and present,
including their legal name, job title, address, telephone number, dates of employment, location of
employment, date of birth, and Social DSW number.” R. Doc. 21.
On January 16, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the
2

FLSA claims for the collective action class and on the LWPA claims for the named plaintiffs. R.
Doc. 57. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class for purposes of the LWPA claims.
R. Doc. 57.
II.

PRESENT MOTION
Plaintiffs ask the Court for leave to file an amended complaint. R. Doc. 61. Plaintiffs seek

to add as a defendant, L’Orchid Thomas, the sole owner of Defendant AJAR. R. Doc. 61-1 at 1.
Plaintiffs argue that they should be permitted to amend their complaint at this stage of the
litigation because Defendant AJAR failed to produce documents or a 30(b)(6) deposition until
December 2017. R. Doc. 61-1 at 1. Defendant responds in opposition arguing that Plaintiffs
motion is untimely, will cause undue delay and prejudice, and is futile. R. Doc. 64.
Because the proposed defendant, L’Orchid Thomas, has filed for bankruptcy, it is
appropriate to allow the bankruptcy court to handle this matter. The Plaintiffs are free to file an
adversary complaint in the bankruptcy case.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file amended complaint, R. Doc. 61, is
hereby DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of January, 2018.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3