Raineri Construction, LLC v. Taylor, et al
MEMORANDUM & ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint [Doc. # 20 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the document attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion for leave to amend [Doc. # 20-1] as the plaintiff's first amended complaint. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 11/15/13. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RAINERI CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
KEITH TAYLOR, et al.,
Case No. 4:12-CV-2297 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint. Defendants have filed a response in opposition and the issues are
Plaintiff Raineri Construction, LLC (Raineri) is a construction contractor.
Defendant Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity (CDC) is a labor
union that represents carpenters and other workers in collective bargaining with
construction contractors. The ten individual defendants, Keith Taylor, Scott Byrne, Paul
Higgins, Al Bond, Mark Kabuss, Michael Ebert, Christopher Woods, George
Wingbermuehle III, Tod Wingbermuehle, and Terry Nelson, are officers and members
of the CDC.
On December 12, 2012, plaintiff filed this action against defendants, alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§
1961-1968 (RICO) (Counts I-IV), tortious interference with business relations (Count
V), civil conspiracy (Count VI), and injurious falsehood (Count VII). Plaintiff alleges
that beginning in November 2011 and continuing to date, defendants implemented a
conspiracy to extort money and inflict damages upon plaintiff by way of threats of
physical violence and property damage, stalking and harassment, defamation, filing
frivolous complaints with the St. Louis City Building Department and the U.S.
Department of Labor-Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and unlawfully
interfering with plaintiff’s business relations.
On March 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim for relief, which is still pending before the Court. On October 9, 2013, plaintiff
filed the instant motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint which adds a claim
based on the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq.
Plaintiff alleges that on October 3, 2013, agents of defendant CDC were sent to
plaintiff’s place of business where they falsely stated that they were picketing and
convinced one plaintiff’s customers not to enter the property.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, permit a party
to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that
happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” “Supplemental pleadings
are intended to cover matters occurring after the original complaint is filed and are
permitted pursuant to exercise of the court’s discretion.” Foster v. Lombardi, Case No.
1:12-CV-116 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 5, 2013) (citing United States ex rel. Kinney v. Stoltz, 327
F.3d 671, 673 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003)); see also Baker Group, L.C. v. Burlington Northern
and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 228 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The rule is permissive for
the parties and discretionary for the court.”). The Eighth Circuit has not set forth the
standard to be applied to a court’s exercise of discretion concerning a motion for leave
under Rule 15(d). However, courts in this district have applied the same liberal
standard as in Rule 15(a), which states that “the court should freely give leave when
justice so requires. See Foster, Case No. 1:12-CV-116; Riggs v. City of Owensville,
2011 WL 1576723, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 26, 2011).
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, the proposed amended complaint,
and defendants’ arguments against granting leave.
Apart from adding a new claim,
the amended complaint does not change any of the original allegations, supporting
facts, or parties. Granting leave to amend would have no impact on the fully-briefed
motion to dismiss filed by defendants on March 15, 2013. Furthermore, plaintiff’s
request is not untimely or brought in bad faith considering that the acts giving rise to
the alleged LMRA violation occurred on October 3, 2013. Thus, the Court cannot agree
with defendants’ arguments that amending the complaint to add the LMRA claim would
cause any confusion or prejudice.
Defendants alternatively request that the Court reserve ruling on the instant
motion until after the Court issues a decision regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss.
A ruling granting or denying the motion to dismiss would have no effect on the new
claim asserted in the amended complaint. Thus, there is no reason to defer a ruling
on the motion to amend.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint [Doc. #20] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the document
attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion for leave to amend [Doc. # 20-1] as the plaintiff’s
first amended complaint.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of November, 2013.
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?