RAMIREZ v. WORLD MISSION SOCIETY, CHURCH OF GOD et al

Filing 192

OPINION AND ORDER denying 171 Motion to Amend/Correct 49 Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge James B. Clark on 6/30/2020. (ld, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHELLE RAMIREZ,
Civil Action No. 14-1708 (JMV)

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
WORLD MISSION SOCIETY CHURCH
OF GOD, A NJ NONPROFIT
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

CLARK, Magistrate Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a motion by Plaintiff Michelle Ramirez
(“Plaintiff”) for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 171]. Defendants World
Mission Society Church of God, A NJ Nonprofit Corporation, Tara Whalen, Richard Whalen,
Victor Lozada, Albright Electric, LLC, Lincoln Grill and Café, Dong Il Lee, Bong Hee Lee and
Big Shine Worldwide oppose Plaintiff’s motion [Dkt. Nos. 173, 174]. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff’s motion to amend [Dkt. No. 171] is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
As the parties are intimately familiar with the facts of this case, the Court will only address

those relevant to the present motion. Plaintiff’s allegations in this matter arise out of her
involvement as a member of World Mission Society Church of God New Jersey (“World Mission
New Jersey”), a not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. See
Dkt. No. 49, Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). According to Plaintiff, she was coerced into
joining, and donating to, World Mission New Jersey based on several false representations and

1

nondisclosures. World Mission Society Church of God South Korea (“World Mission South
Korea”) is a for-profit corporation based in South Korea. Plaintiff brings this action against World
Mission New Jersey, World Mission South Korea, and several other individuals and corporations
who were allegedly involved in the wrongful conduct of World Mission New Jersey and World
Mission South Korea.
According to Plaintiff, after facing significant pressure from World Mission New Jersey’s
recruiters, she decided to join the organization in the fall of 2006. Plaintiff claims that after joining:
Defendants placed Plaintiff in great fear with constant threats of harm
to Plaintiff and her family members if she left, deprived her of sleep
and forced or coerced her to work or engage in other activities for
extremely long hours for no compensation, and alienated her from
her family and friends, all for the purpose of insidiously and
progressively brainwashing, coercing, and controlling Plaintiff and
destroying Plaintiff’s cognitive and independent will.
SAC at ¶ 69. Plaintiff also claims that members of World Mission New Jersey were told they were
not allowed to have children, and if they became pregnant, they were instructed to get an abortion.
Based on this policy, when Plaintiff got pregnant around 2010, she claims to have gotten an
abortion in fear that she would no longer be in good standing with World Mission New Jersey. As
a result of Defendants’ “brainwashing,” Plaintiff claims that she experienced “severe emotional
pain and mental anguish.” Id. at ¶ 70.
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants coerced her into donating ten percent of her
income to the church based upon misrepresentations that the money would be used for charitable
purposes and that none of the money would be used to fund salaries. Plaintiff contends, however,
that her donations were not used for charitable purposes, but rather, the money she donated to
World Mission New Jersey, which is a tax-exempt corporation, was transferred to World Mission

2

South Korea which is a non-tax-exempt corporation, and then used to compensate members of
World Mission New Jersey. Id. at ¶¶ 89-94.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which is presently her operative pleading, sets
forth six causes of action against Defendants. Count I is for fraud based on false representations
regarding the donations being used for charitable purposes. Counts II and III are for fraud based
on nondisclosures related to World Mission South Korea’s leadership and its use of the donation
money to “create, train, and maintain a slave labor force.” Count IV is for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Count V is for negligence. Count IV is for vicarious liability.
Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint includes two additional causes of action.
See Dkt. No. 171-4, Proposed Third Amended Complaint (“PTAC”). The first additional claim is
for “undue influence” and alleges that Defendants intentionally used techniques of “coercive
persuasion to get Plaintiff to do things that she would not have otherwise done.” Id. at ¶ 187. The
second additional claim is for breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Dong Il Lee (“Pastor
Lee”). The proposed Third Amended Complaint also includes new factual allegations in support
of Plaintiff’s existing claims.
II.

DISCUSSION
“The threshold issue in resolving a motion to amend is the determination of whether the

motion is governed by Rule 15 or Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Karlo v.
Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 2011 WL 5170445, at *2 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 31, 2011). Rule 15 states,
in pertinent part, “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(a)(2). “Rule 16, on the other hand, requires a party to demonstrate ‘good cause’ prior to the
Court amending its scheduling order.” Karlo, 2011 WL 5170445, at *2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

16(b)(4)). In situations such as the present, where a party seeks to amend “after the deadline for
doing so set by the Court, the movant must satisfy the [good cause standard] of Rule 16 before the
Court will turn to Rule 15.” Id. at *2; see also Dimensional Commc'n, Inc. v. OZ Optics, Ltd., 148
F. App'x 82, 85 (3d Cir. 2005) (instructing that the Third Circuit has adopted a good cause standard
when determining the propriety of a motion to amend after the deadline has elapsed).
The initial Pretrial Scheduling Order in this matter was entered on April 1, 2016. See Dkt.
No. 68. Pursuant to the Pretrial Scheduling Order, any motions for leave to amend the pleadings
were to be filed by June 10, 2016. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. The Court entered an amended Pretrial
Scheduling Order on May 7, 2018, which set a new deadline of July 27, 2018 for motions to amend
the pleadings. Dkt. No. 112 at ¶¶ 15-16. Despite submitting seemingly countless requests for
judicial intervention in discovery disputes and discovery extensions, neither party requested an
extension of the July 27, 2018 deadline for the amendment of pleadings. Plaintiff’s present motion
to amend was filed on October 31, 2019, approximately fifteen months after the expiration of the
July 27, 2018 deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is governed by Rule 16.
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes courts to enter schedules of
proceedings. The pretrial scheduling order allows a court to take “judicial control over a case and
to schedule dates for completion by the parties of the principal pretrial steps.” Harrison Beverage
Co. v. Dribeck Imps., Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J. Oct. 19, 1990) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
advisory committee's note (1983 Amendment)); see also Newton v. A.C. & S., Inc., 918 F.2d 1121,
1126 (3d Cir. 1990) (stating the purpose of Rule 16 is to provide for judicial control over cases,
streamline proceedings, maximize efficiency of the court system, and actively manage the
timetable of case preparation to expedite speedy and efficient disposition of cases).

4

A scheduling order must, among other things, “limit the time to join other parties, amend
the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). The requirement
of a deadline for amending pleadings in the pretrial scheduling order “assures that at some point .
. . the pleadings will be fixed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) advisory committee's note (1983 Amendment);
see also Harrison, 133 F.R.D. at 469 (“The careful scheme of reasonable framing and enforcement
of scheduling orders for case management would thus be nullified if a party could inject amended
pleadings upon a showing of less than good cause after scheduling deadlines have expired.”). The
burden is on the moving party to show “good cause” for its failure to comply with the applicable
scheduling order, and accordingly, for the Court to allow its proposed amended pleading. Prince
v. Aiellos, No. 09–5429, 2012 WL 1883812, at *6 (D.N.J. May 22, 2012) (quoting Graham, 271
F.R.D. at 118); see also Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57, 84 (3d
Cir. 2010) (affirming the trial court's holding that “Rule 16(b)(4) focuses on the moving party's
burden to show due diligence”).
Whether “good cause” exists under Rule 16 hinges to a large extent on the diligence, or
lack thereof, of the moving party. GlobespanVirata, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 2005 WL
1638136, at *3 (D.N.J. July 12, 2005) (quoting Rent–A–Ctr. v. Mamaroneck Ave. Corp., 215
F.R.D. 100, 104 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2003)). Put succinctly, “[a]bsent diligence, there is no ‘good
cause.’” Chancellor v. Pottsgrove Sch. Dist., 501 F.Supp.2d 695, 702 (E.D.Pa. Aug.8, 2007); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), advisory committee's note (1983 Amendment) (“[T]he court may
modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension.”).
When examining a party's diligence and whether “good cause” exists for granting an
otherwise untimely motion to amend pleadings, courts typically ascertain whether the movant

5

possessed, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have possessed, the knowledge
necessary to file the motion to amend before the deadline expired. See Stallings ex rel. Estate of
Stallings v. IBM Corp., Civ. No. 08–3121, 2009 WL 2905471, at *16 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2009)
(denying plaintiffs' motion to amend because they “had sufficient information to state the proposed
claims well in advance of the Scheduling Order deadline”); Kennedy v. City of Newark,, 2011 WL
2669601, at *2 (D.N.J. July 7, 2011) (“The most common basis for finding a lack of good cause is
the party's knowledge of the potential claim before the deadline to amend has passed.”). If a movant
had the knowledge necessary to file a motion to amend prior to the expiration of the Court's
deadline set forth in the scheduling order, and if the movant can provide no satisfactory explanation
for the delay, the Court may, in its discretion, deny the motion. See Dimensional Commc'n., 148
F. App'x at 85 (upholding trial court's finding that the movant could not show “good cause”
because it was in possession of the facts underlying its proposed counterclaim well before the
deadline for amendment).
Although Plaintiff does not address Rule 16 or its requirements, she claims that the
presently sought amendments arise from a set of documents obtained by Defendants from an
individual identified as Raymond Gonzalez, a former high-ranking member of World Mission New
Jersey, and produced to Plaintiff for the first time in August 2019 (the “Documents”). According
to Plaintiff, the Documents “contain two startling sets of information that Plaintiff did not
previously have access to” and prove that Defendants were aware of the harmful nature of their
conduct. Dkt. No. 171 at p. 2. Plaintiff contends that each of these two sets of documents give rise
to a new cause of action.
The first set of information, referred to by Plaintiff as the “Coercive Persuasion
Documents,” contains documents which discuss certain recruitment and indoctrination techniques

6

utilized by cults. See Dkt. No. 171-6. Plaintiff claims that these documents “give rise to the
inference that Defendants were aware of the techniques that they could use to get Plaintiff to be
‘brainwashed’ or indoctrinated to the point where she could be made to do whatever [Defendants]
desired.” Dkt. No. 171 at p. 4. According to Plaintiff, these documents “cast[] this case in an
entirely new light” because while it was previously “unclear whether Defendants had intentionally
‘brainwashed’ Plaintiff, or whether she had simply experience a ‘brainwashing-like’ effect,” these
documents “show that Defendants understood how the techniques of coercive persuasion actually
work” and therefore confirm that Defendants intentionally subjected Plaintiff to coercive
persuasion. Id. at p. 5.
Based upon this purportedly revelatory information regarding Defendants’ awareness of
coercive techniques, Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action for “undue influence over donor.”
PTAC at ¶¶ 181-215. “Undue influence generally has been defined as mental, moral or physical
exertion which has destroyed the free agency of a testator or settlor by preventing the testator or
settlor from following the dictates of his own mind and will and accepting instead the domination
and influence of another.” In re Niles, 176 N.J. 282, 299, 823 A.2d 1, 10 (2003) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff claims that she is entitled to pursue a cause of action for undue influence because she was
“induced” to donate money to World Mission New Jersey “while being subjected to the techniques
of coercive persuasion.” Dkt. No. 171 at p. 16.
The second set of information contained in the Documents, which Plaintiff refers to as the
“Emotional Distress Documents,” is comprised of “a series of emails Mr. Gonzalez received from
World Mission Critics, by posing as a critic himself.” Id. at p. 5. These emails contain messages
sent by current and former World Mission New Jersey members and their families and purportedly
“describe in horrifying detail how their loved ones have been adversely affected by World

7

Mission’s abusive tactics.” Id. at p. 6. Plaintiff claims that these emails, which were forwarded to
Pastor Lee, “show that Pastor Lee knew he was causing these harms to World Mission members .
. . [which] necessarily means that he knew he was causing those harms to Plaintiff.” Id. at p. 7.
Plaintiff contends that this allegedly newly apparent awareness on behalf of Pastor Lee as
to the harmful nature of his actions “gives rise to a claim that Pastor Lee breached his fiduciary
duties that he owed to Plaintiff as a result of their priest-parishioner relationship.” Id. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action against Pastor Lee for breach of fiduciary duty. PTAC at
¶¶ 216-238. To state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a party must show (1) a fiduciary duty
existed between Plaintiff and Defendant, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) damages
resulted from the breach. F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550, 563–64, 696 A.2d 697 (1997).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed additional claims are futile. In opposition to
Plaintiff’s undue influence claim, Defendants contend that “undue influence is a theory to undo
the execution of a will or gift in a probate proceeding [and] the case law regarding undue influence
typically involves the estate of a deceased individual contesting the contents of a will or inter vivos
gift.” Dkt. No. 173 at p. 24. Plaintiff appears to acknowledge the limited circumstances from which
a cause of action for “undue influence” can arise but, without any supporting law, requests that “a
‘donor’ also be put on the list of people who can be victimized by undue influence.” Dkt. No. 171
at p. 15. As to Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, Defendants correctly assert that under
New Jersey law, “a complaint asserting a claim by a parishioner for breach of fiduciary duty by a
clergyman” is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Balliet v. Fennell, 368 N.J. Super. 15,
19, 845 A.2d 168, 170 (App. Div. 2004).
While the viability of the proposed additional claims is problematic at best, the Court need
not determine whether Plaintiff’s additional claims are futile because they are simply not based on

8

new facts or allegations and thus could have been asserted much earlier in this case. Plaintiff’s
argument that the Documents, while not giving to any new factual revelations, nonetheless show
“that Defendants had a level of awareness regarding [their conduct] that was previously unknown”
is wholly unavailing. Dkt. No. 175 at p. 6. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint plainly alleges
that Defendants’ acted with the “purpose of insidiously and progressively brainwashing, coercing,
and controlling Plaintiff and destroying Plaintiff’s cognitive and independent will.” SAC at ¶ 69.
These allegations directly contradict Plaintiff’s present assertion that the proposed amendments
are justified because she was previously unsure if Defendants’ alleged conduct towards her was
intentional or aimed at inflicting harm. Although Plaintiff may use the Documents to support her
existing claims regarding Defendants’ conduct, the Documents do not contain revelatory
information sufficient to justify the assertion of novel claims at this late juncture.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court were to find a newly demonstrated level of
“awareness” on behalf of Defendants as to their purported “brainwashing” of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s
contention that her belated assertion of additional claims is justified because the Documents
contain information previously unknown to Plaintiff cannot be reconciled with Plaintiff’s repeated
acknowledgment that the proposed amendment “simply re-casts” Plaintiff’s previous allegations
into new and separate causes of action. Dkt. No. 175 at p. 6. While Plaintiff may be correct that
the “mere re-framing of a claim, arising out of the same facts already litigated, does not constitute
bad faith,” the desire to repackage already known facts to create new claims does not constitute
good cause under Rule 16. Id.
The same rationale disposes of the additional factual allegations Plaintiff attempts to
incorporate into her existing claims. In addition to the newly asserted claims, Plaintiff has amended
her existing claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress to include allegations that

9

Defendants “indoctrinate[ed] her to believe that her special needs child was possessed by demons
and was unworthy of being born” and attempted to coerce her into entering an arranged marriage.
PTAC at ¶ 241. It is not clear when the events giving rise to these additional allegations occurred
and there is no explanation by Plaintiff as to why these additional facts were not, or could not have
been, included in her prior pleadings. Additionally, there is no explanation by Plaintiff as to how
these additional allegations are related to the newly received evidence.
Instead, Plaintiff argues that these new facts “have been litigated throughout this case, even
if they were not specifically delineated in the [Second Amended Complaint].” Dkt. No. 175 at p.
2. This argument by Plaintiff acknowledges that although she has been aware of these allegations
throughout the lengthy pendency of this case, she did not seek to formally add them to her pleading
until the deadline for doing so had long passed. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has admittedly
possessed the information necessary to assert these additional allegations for some time and has
failed to explain why they could not have been included in her prior pleadings or raised prior to
the expiration of the July 2018 deadline, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish good
cause.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause
for failing to move to assert the presently sought amendments within the deadline set forth in the
Court’s Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, denies
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 16.
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court having considered the papers submitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, and for

the reasons set forth above;
IT IS on this 30th day of June, 2020,

10

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend [Dkt. No. 171] is DENIED.

s/ James B. Clark, III
JAMES B. CLARK, III
United States Magistrate Judge

11