Sawyer v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

Filing 62

Memorandum Opinion and Order: granting 48 Motion for Leave to File amended complaint, denying 54 Motion to Dismiss. Sawyer shall file Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint by 4/22/2011. Any motion filed by a defendant pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) must be filed by 5/9/2011. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/19/2011) (dnc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STEVE SAWYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS
UNION, AFL-CIO, and UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-1780-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, filed
October 25, 2010; and the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant American Postal Workers Union, AFLCIO, filed November 1, 2010. After careful consideration of the motions, briefs, record, and
applicable law, the court grants Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
and denies without prejudice the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant American Postal Workers Union,
AFL-CIO.
I.

Background
Steve Sawyer (“Plaintiff” or “Sawyer”) requests leave of court to file Plaintiff’s Third

Amended Complaint. He contends that the amendment is necessary to clarify and correct factual
allegations made in the pleadings. Sawyer further contends that “[t]here is no undue delay, bad
faith, or dilatory motive in amending the complaint[]” or “undue or substantial prejudice to the
Defendants.” Pl.’s Mot. to Amend ¶ 1.2.

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

The American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (“APWU” or “Defendant”) opposes the
motion. It opposes the motion because the court earlier directed Sawyer to file Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint by October 15, 2010, and because the proposed amendment “adds multiple new
allegations, and two new causes of action [that] should have been included in the amendment that
was due October 15.” Br. in Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave 1-2.
II.

Legal Standard -Leave to Amend
When considering a request for leave to amend, the court freely gives leave when justice so

requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Although the decision to grant leave is discretionary, the court’s
discretion is “not broad enough to permit denial if the court lacks a substantial reason to do so.” In
re Southmark Corp., 88 F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 1996). A district court “may consider such factors
as 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, and futility
of amendment.” Id. at 314-15 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Absent such
factors, the court should allow amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.
III.

Discussion
A.

Motion to Amend

Whether to allow Sawyer to amend Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is a fairly close
call. The court ultimately determines that justice requires that Sawyer be allowed to file the
amended complaint.
First, the court believes that there is no undue delay. There has been some delay, but the
court does not consider it to be significant. Some of the overall delay has been caused by the court’s
delay in ruling on the pending motion, and the court apologizes for the extent that it has caused some
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

of the delay. Second, there is no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive on Plaintiff’s part. The
court is not pleased in the manner Plaintiff sought to amend in that Plaintiff does not explain why
the matters he sought to add were not included in the earlier amendment allowed by the court.
Third, the court determines that Plaintiff could have cured the prior deficiencies identified earlier;
however, such failure does not fall into the category of repeated failures. Fourth, the court
determines that APWU will not suffer any undue prejudice. This is so because APWU will certainly
have an opportunity to reurge its motion to dismiss. Further, nothing has been presented by APWU
that its ability to defend this action has been hampered or rendered ineffective. Finally, Defendant
states that this action should not proceed, which is another way of stating futility of amendment.
APWU may be correct, but at this juncture the court believes that the better approach is to allow the
amendment to ensure that Plaintiff has pleaded his “best case” and then allow APWU to address the
amended complaint with a motion to dismiss. The court believes that it would be premature and
improvident for it to make a decision regarding futility prior to the filing of the amended pleading.
The court will not allow any further amendment during the pendency of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion. Plaintiff, with the amendment, will certainly have had ample time to plead his best case.
As the Fifth Circuit has held, “[a]t some point, a court must decide that a plaintiff has had fair
opportunity to make his case; if, after that time, a cause of action has not been established, the court
should finally dismiss the suit.” Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir.
2003) (quoting Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792-93 (5th Cir. 1986)). If APWU or the
United States Postal Service files a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and the court determines that no claim has
been stated upon which relief can be granted, the court will not allow further amendment by
Plaintiff. With Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, the court determines that he will have pleaded

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3

his best case and that at least two of the factors that a court considers to deny further amendment will
apply.
B.

Motion to Dismiss

As the court will permit the amended pleading, the better approach is to deny the pending
motion to dismiss without prejudice because the court desires to consider a dispositive motion in
light of claims raised in the live pleading, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. The court realizes
that this causes some inconvenience and additional costs to APWU; however, a clean dispositive
motion puts the action in a better procedural posture for the court and the parties.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons herein stated, the court grants Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint. Sawyer shall file Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint by April 22, 2011.
The court denies without prejudice the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant American Postal Workers
Union, AFL-CIO. Any motion filed by a defendant pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) must be filed by May
9, 2011. The response to the motion and the reply to the response must be filed in accordance with
the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas.
It is so ordered this 19th day of April, 2011.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 4