Snelling v. ATC Healthcare Services Inc. et al
Filing
46
OPINION AND ORDER granting and denying 23 motion to amend and motion to stay. Motions 13 & 14 are moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 10/10/12. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DAWN SNELLING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Civil Action 2:11-CV-983
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King
ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave
to Amend Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend”), Doc. No. 23.
That
motion also asks that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
be stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
For the
following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request to stay is DENIED as moot.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dawn Snelling, acting on behalf of herself and a class
of plaintiffs, seeks unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, Ohio R.C. § 4111.03.
Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 1.
On May 24, 2012, defendants ATC Healthcare Services Inc., and
Nursemate, Inc., filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings,
seeking dismissal of the Complaint “to the extent that it seeks relief
as a Collective Action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).”
Defendants’ ATC Healthcare Services, Inc. and
1
Nursemate, Inc. Combined Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(“Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings”), Doc. No. 14, p.
1.
On June 12, 2012, plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend,
seeking leave to amend the Complaint “to provide additional factual
support” for her claims.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, p. 2.
Plaintiff’s new allegations include alleged similarities between
herself and similarly situated people and actions allegedly taken by
defendants or taken by plaintiff and similarly situated people.
Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that she and similarly situated people
“provided nursing care to the various prisons throughout the state of
Ohio,” had “the same or similar [job duties] at each prison facility,”
and had a “Sunday through Saturday” work week.
See Amended Complaint,
attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as Exhibit A, at ¶¶ 40-41, 44.
According to the proposed Amended Complaint, defendants reduced the
overtime rate of plaintiff and similarly situated people “to an amount
below one and one-half times regular pay,” defendants reduced hourly
rates “for the sole reason of reducing . . . overtime rates to an
amount less than one and one-half times their regular pay,” and
defendants told plaintiff and similarly situated people “that if they
wanted to get their overtime pay they would have to sue and wait
several years to get it.”
Id. at ¶¶ 53-54, 57.
The proposed Amended
Complaint further alleges that plaintiff is aware of at least 12 other
nurses who were not paid the proper overtime rate by defendants, that
defendants have admitted to failing to properly pay overtime, and that
defendants have started sending checks to employees for “unpaid
2
overtime.”
Id. at ¶¶ 60, 62-63.
Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion, arguing that the proposed
amendment would be futile.
Defendants ATC Healthcare Services, Inc.
and Nursemate, Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Combined
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Motion to Stay Defendants’
Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Defendants’ Response”),
Doc. No. 27, p. 1.
Specifically, defendants argue that the proposed
Amended Complaint alleges only legal conclusions and does not contain
factual allegations of persons similarly situated to plaintiff.
Id.
at 2-3.
II.
STANDARD
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is governed by Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a “court should
freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
P. 15(a)(2).
Fed. R. Civ.
“The thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle
that cases should be tried on their merits rather than the
technicalities of pleadings.”
Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th
Cir. 1982) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)).
The
grant or denial of a request to amend a complaint is left to the broad
discretion of the trial court.
F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916
In exercising its discretion, the
trial court may consider such factors as “undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment [and] futility
of the amendment.”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
3
“A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
Rose v. Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing
Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 382-83
(6th Cir. 1993)).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the
legal sufficiency of the complaint.
See Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon
Steel Co., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983).
In determining whether
dismissal on this basis is appropriate, a complaint must be construed
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded
facts must be accepted as true.
See Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96
F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 1996);
Misch v. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., 896 F.
Supp. 734, 738 (S.D. Ohio 1994).
The United States Supreme Court has
explained that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be
supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations
in the complaint.”
(2007).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546
However, a plaintiff’s claim for relief “requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do.”
Id. at 555.
“Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level . . . .”
Id.
Accordingly, a complaint must be dismissed – and
amending a complaint is futile – if the complaint does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”
Id. at 570.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants’ sole argument against leave to amend the Complaint is
that the proposed amendment would be futile.
4
See Defendants’
Response, p. 1.
Referring to arguments made in their motion for
judgment on the pleadings, defendants argue that the proposed Amended
Complaint contains only legal conclusions and lacks factual
allegations that support the existence of persons similarly situated
to plaintiff.
Id. at 2-3.
Thus, according to defendants, the
proposed Amended Complaint does not state a cognizable collective
cause of action.
Id. at 1-2.
Defendants do not argue – either here or in Defendants’ Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings – that plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently plead the claims asserted on her own behalf.1
Notably,
the new allegations in the proposed Amended Complaint are not limited
to the collective cause of action and they often address plaintiff’s
individual claims and the class claims within the same paragraph.
See
Amended Complaint, attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as Exhibit
A, at ¶¶ 52-57 (each alleging that plaintiff and similarly situated
people either took the same action or had the same action taken
against them by defendants).
Because defendants do not argue that all
claims are futile, and because the new allegations appear to apply to
both plaintiff’s individual claims and the collective claims, the
Court cannot conclude that the proposed amendment would be futile.2
Additionally, there is no indication that defendants would be
1
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings does not seek
dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims; rather, it seeks dismissal of the
Complaint “to the extent that it seeks relief as a Collective Action under 29
U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).” Defendants’ Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, p. 1.
2
In so holding, the Court expresses no opinion as to the validity of
plaintiff’s claims or whether plaintiff has stated a claim for relief as a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
5
prejudiced by the proposed amendment.
There is no suggestion of bad
faith on the part of plaintiff, this is the first amendment sought by
plaintiff, and plaintiff does not seek to assert new claims or to add
parties.
There is also no indication that plaintiff’s new factual
allegations will unfairly recast the essential nature of the case.
See Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 909 (6th Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend should not affect
the discovery completion date or other case deadlines.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 23, is
GRANTED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to file plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
which is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 23, as
Exhibit A.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay, Doc. No.
23, is DENIED as moot.
With the filing of the Amended Complaint,
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Doc. No. 14, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave for Partial Dismissal with Prejudice,
Doc. No. 13, are both now moot.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove Doc.
No. 13 and Doc. No. 14 from the Court’s pending motions list.
October 10, 2012
s/ Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?