Hewitt v. Minneapolis, The City of et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4 ) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 14 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/27/2013. (BJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
George Hewitt,
Civil No. 12-2132 (DWF/FLN)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
The City of Minneapolis (Impound
Lot/Minneapolis Department of
Public Works); Don Pedlar, individually
and in his capacity as Impound Lot
Supervisor; Brian Hymes, individually
and in his capacity as Shift Supervisor;
Steve Hengel, individually and in his
capacity as Assistant Manager or Supervisor,
et al.
Defendants.
Christopher R. Walsh, Esq., Walsh Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff.
Kristin R. Sarff and Sara J. Lathrop, Minneapolis City Attorney’s Office, counsel for
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to a Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) brought by
Defendants City of Minneapolis, Don Pedlar, Brian Hymes, and Steve Hengel (together,
“Defendants”), and a Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 14) filed by Plaintiff
George Hewitt (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants
Defendants’ motion and denies Plaintiff’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action asserting eight causes of action all related to his
central claim that Defendants discriminated against him based on his race, national
origin, color, age, religion, and disability. (See generally Doc. No. 1, Ex. 2, Compl.)
Plaintiff is a 60-year-old black Christian male who immigrated to the United States from
the African Country of Eritrea. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 14, 46.) Plaintiff is an employee of the City of
Minneapolis, Department of Public Works, where he works as a customer service
representative at the City’s Impound Lot. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) Plaintiff alleges that he has a
10% disability in his foot and other mental health disabilities. (Id. ¶ 48.)
On February 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination (the “2007
Charge”) with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Minneapolis
Department of Civil Rights (“MDCR”). (Doc. No. 10, Lathrop Aff. ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) In the
2007 Charge, Plaintiff alleged that he had been discriminated and retaliated against based
on his race, color, national origin, and age. (Id. at 3.) He alleged that the dates of
discrimination were October 1, 2006 to December 27, 2006, and that the discrimination
was continuing. (Id. at 3.) 1
1
Although no specifics were stated in the 2007 Charge, during the investigation,
Plaintiff alleged that he was denied extra hours, assigned to work alone at the cash
register during busy hours, shadowed by co-workers, asked about his national origin and
whether he was from a “terrorist country,” referred to by a co-worker as the cousin of
Osama Bin Laden, and that he was not transferred to accommodate his medical condition.
(Lathrop Aff. ¶ 4, Ex. 1 at 5-6.)
2
On December 7, 2010, after the investigation, the MDCR concluded that “No Probable
Cause” exists to believe Plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination are well-founded. (Id.
at 4, 9.) This finding was sustained by a review panel of the Minneapolis Commission of
Civil Rights. (Id. at 11.) On June 1, 2011, the Commission on Civil Rights mailed
Plaintiff a form entitled “NOTICE OF RIGHTS TO PRIVATE ACTION,” alerting him
to the 45-day time limit within which to bring an action alleging state-law claims. (Id.
at 10, 12.) On July 12, 2011, the EEOC sent Plaintiff a “Dismissal and Notice of Rights,”
informing Plaintiff, based on its investigation, it was unable to conclude that the
information gathered established a violation of federal statute. (Id. at 13-14.) The EEOC
further explained that Plaintiff must file any lawsuit alleging federal claims within
90 days. (Id. at 13-14.)
On April 6, 2012, the EEOC sent the City of Minneapolis a Notice of Charge of
Discrimination filed by Plaintiff. (Lathrop Aff. ¶ 5, Ex. 2 at 1.) In addition, on
May 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, MDHR, and
MDCR (the “2012 Charge”). (Id. at 6.) 2 In the 2012 Charge, the dates of discrimination
were April 1, 2011 to April 4, 2012, and continuing. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleged that
Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him based on his age, race, national
origin, color, disability, and religion. (Id.) The EEOC dismissed Plaintiff’s charge on
May 17, 2012, stating: “Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude
2
Another Notice of Charge of Discrimination was sent to the City of Minneapolis
on May 17, 2012, based on the May 2, 2012 Charge. (Id. at 3.) Both the May 17, 2012
and the April 6, 2012 notice used EEOC Charge Number 846-2012-22863. (Id.)
3
that the information obtained established violations of the statutes.” (Id. at 8.) On
June 25, 2012, the MDCR sent Plaintiff a letter explaining that the matter was dismissed
on May 17, 2012, and enclosed the EEOC’s Dismissal and Notice of Rights. (Id. at 1314.)
Plaintiff filed the present action in state court on August 17, 2012, and Defendants
removed the case to this Court on August 29, 2012. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff is represented
by Christopher Walsh (“Attorney Walsh”). The portions of the Complaint that contain
factual allegations read as follows:
46.
Defendant Minneapolis created a hostile environment against
immigrants, the disabled, people of color, women, and other protected class
members. A white guard called Plaintiff, “Godamn Somali.” He is a
Christian and is not Somali. The racially and sexually degrading or biased
comments and conduct of supervisors and MCC employees constituted
illegal harassment and a hostile environment. Defendants failed to take
corrective action or remedy the long and sordid history of discrimination,
harassment, and unequal discipline against minorities.
...
53.
There is direct and indirect evidence of age discrimination
and retaliation in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d), et seq., and
other age discrimination laws. Upon information and belief Defendants
made age-biased comments to all Plaintiff [sic] as described herein during
the course of their [sic] employment. The comments and inferences that
Plaintiff was too old, too slow, needed a time clock or constant monitoring
and surveillance to complete their [sic] work in a timely fashion, “how long
are you going to work here,” he [sic] should quit or retire if you don’t like
the job, were directed only at Plaintiff and younger, employees were not
treated this way, discriminated against, retaliated against, and terminated as
Plaintiff was.
...
4
64.
Defendants used tricks or artifices or devices to bring about
or facilitate discrimination, including stating false and pretextual reasons
for discipline of Plaintiff. Exaggeration and double standards relating to
being “discourteous,” insubordinate, damaging property, being out of one’s
work area, taking extended breaks, theft or dishonesty and even glancing at
a newspaper were used to harass and obstruct Plaintiff from reporting
discrimination and take them [sic] off the job. Once Plaintiff was
obstructed, discredited, damaged in reputation, emotionally and
economically by Defendants’ lies and artifices, it had the effect of silencing
or diminishing their [sic] complaints and protected activity. Defendants
continued to retaliate against Plaintiff even after termination of
employment by opposing Plaintiff’s attempts to receive benefits,
retirement, pension rights, grievance and union arbitration rights,
unemployment benefits and other adverse action.
(Compl. ¶¶ 46, 53, 64.)
Defendants point out the confusing nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, namely that
the Complaint appears to reference multiple plaintiffs and repeatedly references
Plaintiff’s termination. This case involves a single plaintiff who was not terminated.
Defendants also discovered, and point out, that the language in paragraphs 53 and 64 of
the Complaint appears verbatim in another complaint drafted by Attorney Walsh. See
Benford v. City of Minneapolis, Civ. No. 10-cv-04539 (ADM/LIB), Doc. 4 (First Am.
Compl.) ¶¶ 318, 329. 3 A review of the relevant documents in the Benford case reveals
that the allegations in paragraphs 53 and 64 of this case actually relate to the evidence in
the Benford case, not the facts of this case.
3
On October 24, 2012, an attorney for Defendants e-mailed Attorney Walsh to
inquire whether paragraphs 53 and 64 of the Complaint were inadvertently included in
this lawsuit, noting that they were identical to the allegations in Benford. (Lathrop Aff.
¶ 2.) She never received a response from Attorney Walsh. (Id. ¶ 3.)
5
In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims
should be dismissed pursuant to the statute of limitations, due to Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss until December 7, 2012, the morning of the scheduled hearing and twenty days
after Plaintiff’s opposition was due. 4 (Doc. No. 12.) Attorney Walsh asserts that he had
justifiable excuses for the delay, including several neck injuries, two car accidents, the
loss of an associate attorney, a law clerk who was “out for the bar exam much of the
summer,” and responsibilities in other complicated cases. (Doc. No. 13, Walsh Aff.
¶¶ 15, 16.) At the hearing, Attorney Walsh appeared and indicated that he intended to
file an amended complaint. The Court agreed to place Plaintiff’s motion to amend the
Complaint before it to determine if the motion was properly filed and whether the motion
should be considered. (Doc. No. 17 at 2.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a copy of its
proposed amended complaint by December 17, 2012, and reserved the right to receive an
4
On September 13, 2012, Attorney Walsh sent an e-mail to Magistrate Judge
Noel’s chambers indicating that Plaintiff intended to amend his Complaint, and that such
an amendment would address issues raised in the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 24, Sarff
Aff. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) In addition, in an e-mail to Defendants’ counsel dated October 5, 2012,
Attorney Walsh indicated that a draft of an amended complaint would be completed soon.
(Id. ¶ 6, Ex. 4.) Defendants also assert that during a meet and confer conference on
October 12, 2012, Attorney Walsh indicated that ten pages of facts relevant to Plaintiff’s
claims were inadvertently left out of the Complaint. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendants’ counsel
offered to review the contents of an amended complaint if it was received before
Defendants filed their memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss. (Id.) Plaintiff
did not provide a draft of a proposed amended complaint before Defendants filed their
memorandum on October 26, 2012.
6
amended complaint and rule on the merits of the pending motion for leave to amend with
or without oral argument. (Id.) The Court also reserved the right to award attorney fees
and costs to Defendants related to the preparation for and the appearance at the
December 7, 2012 hearing, and any additional costs and expenses, including attorney
fees, related to Plaintiff’s untimely submissions. (Id.)
On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed his proposed First Amended Complaint.
(Doc. No. 18.) While the proposed First Amended Complaint contains a single
highlighted line, it does not contain a red-lined (or otherwise marked) version required by
Local Rule 15.1. In addition, despite the Court’s clear indication that it would consider
whether it would hear the motion to amend and, thus, whether it would accept the
proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel requested, and received, a
summons to issue for the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 20.) Further, two days
after submitting the proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff requested permission to
file a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 21.) The Court deferred any consideration
of Plaintiff’s request to file a Second Amended Complaint until the pending motion to
dismiss was ruled upon. (Doc. No. 26.)
DISCUSSION
I.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint
Plaintiff moves to amend his Complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 15 provides in relevant part:
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course within:
7
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a
motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The
court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
Because Plaintiff filed his motion to amend the Complaint well after the time
permitted for amending as a matter of course, and having failed to obtain Defendants’
written consent, Plaintiff must obtain the Court’s leave in order to file his proposed
amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. “Although leave to amend shall be freely given
when justice so requires . . . plaintiffs do not have an absolute or automatic right to
amend.” United States v. Fairview Health Sys., 413 F.3d 748, 749 (8th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). The Court may deny a motion to amend when there is undue delay,
bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the non-moving party,
or futility of the amendment. Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.
2008). Moreover, “[a] district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to
amend where a plaintiff has not followed applicable procedural rules.” O’Neil v.
Simplicity, Inc., 574 F.3d 501, 505 (8th Cir. 2009). The applicable local rule requires a
party requesting leave to amend to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading and
“a version of the proposed amended pleading that shows—through redlining, underlining,
strikeouts, or other similarly effective typographic methods—how the proposed amended
pleading differs from the operative pleading.” D. Minn. LR 15.1(b).
8
Here, Attorney Walsh has repeatedly failed to comply with the rules and has
generally failed to conduct himself with diligence and professionalism that is expected by
the Court. First, Plaintiff, through his attorney, filed a Complaint that appears to have
been cut-and-pasted from the complaint in a different case, and contains allegations with
no bearing on the present case. Second, despite indicating to Defendants and the Court
on several occasions (the first time being in September 2012) that he intended to amend
his complaint, Plaintiff did not file a motion to amend until the day of the hearing on
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and then failed to provide a draft of a proposed amended
complaint at that time. Instead, pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiff filed his proposed
First Amended Complaint on December 17, 2012. When Plaintiff filed the proposed
First Amended Complaint, he did so without a properly red-lined (or otherwise
appropriately marked) version. Moreover, despite the fact that the Court had not yet
ruled on whether to permit the amendment, Plaintiff requested and received a summons
and, just days after filing the proposed First Amended Complaint, requested to file a
Second Amended Complaint. Finally, Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s
pending motion to dismiss (which is discussed further below) until the morning of the
hearing.
Attorney Walsh has displayed a complete lack of respect for the rules of the Court
and a disregard for the parties involved in this lawsuit. The Court finds it particularly
egregious that Attorney Walsh appears to have simply copied the factual allegations from
another case and completely failed to respond to Defendants’ inquiry into those
allegations. In light of the extreme nature of Attorney Walsh’s conduct, the Court finds
9
that Plaintiff, through the actions of his attorney, has unduly delayed and acted in bad
faith in moving to amend his complaint. In addition, the Court finds that Defendants
have been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s conduct, as parties must be able to rely on the
expectation that their adversaries will comply with the rules of Court, so that they can
properly and efficiently prepare their case. 5 Because Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the rules and general lack of professionalism and diligence are both inexcusable and
prejudicial, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
II.
Motion to Dismiss
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff’s
opposition was due on November 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed his response at 5:33 a.m. on
December 7, 2012, the day of the scheduled hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. If
a party fails to timely file a memorandum of law, the Court may cancel the hearing and
consider the matter on the papers, reschedule the hearing, refuse oral argument by the
party who failed to file, award reasonable attorney fees to the opposing party, take some
combination of these actions, or “take any other action that the court considers
appropriate.” D. Minn. LR 7.1(g).
For the reasons discussed above, namely Plaintiff’s undue delay and blatant
disregard for the rules of Court, the Court refuses to consider Plaintiff’s untimely
opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Having reviewed the substance of
5
Upon review, amendment would likely be futile, as it appears that the allegations
of the proposed First Amended Complaint would not withstand a motion to dismiss.
10
Defendants’ arguments for why Plaintiff’s claims fail, and considering Plaintiff’s failure
to oppose those arguments, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 6
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. [4]) is GRANTED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. [1]) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. [14]) is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 27, 2013
s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
6
Not only has Plaintiff waived any arguments in opposition to Defendants’ motion
to dismiss by failing to respond, but Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law and/or under
Twombly.
11
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?