Browning v. Ceva Freight, LLC et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting 23 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. For the reasons set forth herein, the Pltffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted. The Pltffs are directed to serve and file their amended complaint within 10 days of the date of this Order, in which the Pltffs may name Andrew Huggins as a named Pltff. ( Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/14/2011.) (Fagan, Linda)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
FRANKLIN BROWNING, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who
were employed by CEVA Freight, LLC and
EGL, Inc. and/or any other entities with,
MEMORANDUM OF
controlling, or controlled by CEVA Freight, LLC DECISION AND ORDER
or EGL, Inc.,
10-cv-5594 (ADS)(AKT)
Plaintiffs,
-againstCEVA FREIGHT, LLC and EGL, LLC,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
Virginia & Ambinder LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
111 Broadway
14th Floor
New York, NY 10006
By:
James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq., of Counsel
Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
1 Old Country Road Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
By:
Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
Jessica Lorraine Parada, Esq.
Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq., of Counsel
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Attorneys for the Defendants
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
By:
Jeffrey I. Kohn, Esq.
Jennifer Merzon Evans, Esq., of Counsel
SPATT, District Judge.
This proposed class action, concerning alleged unpaid wages and overtime
wages, was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New
York Labor Law (“NYLL”). The Plaintiffs have now moved this Court, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 15(a) and 21, for leave to file
an amended complaint to add an additional named plaintiff in this action. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiffs are workers who presently are or were formerly employed by
the Defendants, Ceva Freight, LLC and EGL, LLC, to provide pick-up and delivery
services. The Plaintiffs allege that beginning in approximately 2004, and
continuing through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a pattern and
practice of withholding all earned wages and overtime payments through means of
improperly classifying the named Plaintiff and others similarly situated as
“independent contractors.”
On December 2, 2010, the named Plaintiff Franklin Browning, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by the
Defendants, commenced this proposed Rule 23 class action and FLSA collective
action for violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, 216(b), as well as Articles
6 and 19 of the NYLL and the wage orders, rules and regulations promulgated
pursuant to these laws, to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages allegedly owed
to the Plaintiffs.
2
In addition to the one named plaintiff, Franklin Browning, four other
individuals consented to become parties in this action prior to the filing of the
Defendants’ Answer. The Plaintiffs now seek leave to amend their complaint to
add one of these individuals, Andrew Huggins, as a second named plaintiff in this
case. The Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed by the Defendants.
II.
DISCUSSION
Rule 21 states that “Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court
on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such
terms as are just.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Rule 15(a) directs that leave to amend “shall
be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to amend
should be granted absent “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.
Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962).
The Defendants in the present case have not raised any objections to the
Plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add Huggins as a second
named plaintiff. Huggins, who is already an opt-in plaintiff to the FLSA collective
action, seeks to assert only the claims already made in the original complaint. The
record reveals no prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, or futility that would compel the
Court to deny the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint in this manner.
The Defendants will not be required to expend significant additional
resources to conduct discovery or prepare for trial with the addition of a second
3
named plaintiff, because discovery for this FLSA action is still ongoing. In fact,
discovery at this juncture in the case has been limited solely to the issue of the
independent contractor status of the Plaintiffs. To date, there has been no class
discovery in order for the parties and the Court to focus on this threshold legal issue
presented by this case. It does not appear to the Court that the addition of Andrew
Huggins as a named plaintiff will affect that particular issue in the litigation, which
applies globally to all of the potential plaintiffs. Moreover, the parties’ Local Rule
56.1 Statements address all of the parties who have filed consent forms in this
action, and thus specifically include details concerning Andrew Huggins’
relationship with the Defendants.
Therefore, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add Andrew Huggins as a named Plaintiff.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended
complaint is granted. The Plaintiffs are directed to serve and file their amended
complaint within 10 days of the date of this Order, in which the Plaintiffs may name
Andrew Huggins as a named Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 14, 2011
__/s/ Arthur D. Spatt___
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge
4
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?