Bradley v. Worthington Industries et al
Filing
114
MEMORANDUM OPINION and Order denying 95 Motion to Dismiss Counter claim. Signed by Judge Bruce S. Jenkins on 05/26/2020. (kpf)
Case 2:18-cv-00486-BSJ Document 114 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 4
FILED
2020 MAY 26 AM 11:42
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
XAVIER BRADLEY,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff,
V.
WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES AND
DHYBRID SYSTEMS,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:18-CV-00486-BSJ
District Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim ("Motion"). 1
The Motion has been fully briefed by the parties, and the Court has considered the facts and
arguments set forth in those filings. The Court elects to determine the Motion on the basis of the
written memoranda and finds that oral argument would not be helpful or necessary. DUCivR 7l(f). Having considered the parties' briefs, the evidence presented, and the relevant law, the
Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Xavier Bradley ("Bradley") filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants
Worthington Industries, Inc. and Dhybrid Systems ("Worthington") on June 18, 2018. 2 The
complaint contained two claims for hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation in
violation of 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981. 3 Worthington filed a motion to dismiss,4 which the Court denied
1
ECFNo. 95.
2
ECFNo. 2.
3
Id
4
ECF No. 19.
Case 2:18-cv-00486-BSJ Document 114 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 4
on March 11, 2019. 5 The Defendants subsequently filed their answer on April 1, 2019. 6 On May
7, 2019, the Court entered a scheduling order and set the deadline for Worthington to amend the
pleadings for August 16, 2019. 7
On December 19, 2019, Bradley moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for
wrongful termination in violation of public policy, which the Court granted on February 4,
2020. 8 Worthington filed an answer and added a counterclaim for breach of the parties'
settlement agreement on February 18, 2019. 9 Bradley subsequently filed the present Motion.
Bradley argues the counterclaim is untimely in violation of the scheduling order,
Worthington cannot show good cause to amend the answer, and Worthington should have sought
leave of the court to file the counterclaim. 10 Worthington argues the amended complaint required
them to file a new answer, counterclaims are not independent pleadings subject to the scheduling
order, and they had a right to add a counterclaim without seeking leave of the Court because
Bradley changed the scope or theory of the case. 11
DISCUSSION
An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect.
Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Int'l Controls Corp. v.
Vesco, 556 F .2d 665 (2d Cir.1977)). Federal Courts take varied approaches to deciding whether a
defendant must seek leave of the court when adding a new counterclaim in response to an
5
ECFNo. 37.
6
ECFNo. 39.
7
ECFNo. 46.
8
ECF No. 80, 82.
9
ECFNo. 83.
10
ECF No. 95.
11
ECFNo. 99.
2
Case 2:18-cv-00486-BSJ Document 114 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 4
amended complaint Owners Ins. Co. v. Stahl, No. l:18-cv-00230, 2019 WL 5095711, at *5 (D.
Colo. May 31, 2019) (citing Hydro Eng'g, Inc. v. Petter Invs., Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00139, 2013 WL
1194732, at *3 (D. Utah Mar. 22, 2013)). 12 Although the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals does
not appear to have spoken on the issue, several district courts in the Tenth Circuit have adopted
the moderate approach. 13 The moderate approach permits counterclaims or affirmative defenses
as ofright when the amended complaint changes the theory or scope of the case. Hydro Eng'g,
2013 WL 1194732, at *3 (quoting Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 812, 832 (N.D.
Iowa 1997), ajf'd, 205 F.3d 1347 (8th Cir. 2000)).
The Court finds Worthington was allowed to add a counterclaim as of right in response
to the amended complaint. Here, Bradley's amended complaint added a claim for wrongful
termination in violation of public policy. 14 Bradley argues that the new claim did not change the
scope of the case enough to warrant a right to add a counterclaim, but rather expanded upon
theories already contained in the original complaint. 15 Worthington counters that the new claim
is based on new facts and expands the scope ofliability. 16 The Court finds the amended
complaint expanded the scope of the case because the new claim is based on different legal
standards and founded in part on new factual footing. The wrongful termination claim requires
the defense to discover facts and develop legal theories that are wholly different from the claims
12 Hydro Eng'g discusses the pennissive, narrow, and moderate approaches in detail. The pennissive approach
allows the defendant to amend the answer without leave, regardless of the scope of the complaint. The narrow
approach only allows counterclaims as of right if they directly relate to the changes in the amended complaint. The
moderate approach allows the defendant to plead anew as though they were responding to the original complaint
filed by the plaintiff when the plaintiff changes the theory or scope of the case in the amended complaint.
13
See, e.g., Owners Ins. Co. v. Stahl, No. I:18-cv-00230, 2019 WL 509571 I, at *5 (D. Colo. May 31, 2019); Woods
v. Nationbuilders Ins. Servs., Inc., No. 11-CV-02151, 2014 WL 1213381, at *l (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2014); Hydro
Eng'g, Inc. v. Petter Investments, Inc., No. 2:ll-CV-00139, 2013 WL 1194732 (D. Utah Mar. 22, 2013).
14
ECF No. 79.
15
ECF No. 107.
16
ECFNo. 99.
3
Case 2:18-cv-00486-BSJ Document 114 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 4
for retaliation and hostile work environment. Additionally, the counterclaim for breach of the
settlement agreement relates to the newly added claim for wrongful discharge. Bradley argues
Worthington could have pied this claim initially and should not be allowed to add it at this late
hour. However, the Court finds that although Worthington could have brought the counterclaim
in its original answer, the addition of the wrongful discharge claim permits Worthington to bring
the counterclaim now.
Further, Bradley argues he will be prejudiced by the new counterclaim because he has not
yet conducted discovery into the damages associated with the claim. 17 When the Court granted
the motion to amend the complaint at the hearing on February 4, 2020, the Court stated that
Worthington would be allowed to conduct discovery into the new claim and scheduling
deadlines would be altered. 18 The Court notes that Bradley indicated in a recent status report that
discovery should be extended until August 31, 2020. 19
ORDER
The Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
'[fv
DATED this~ day of May, 2020.
Bruce S. Jenkiy.s"
_.
United Stater~~~i?pDistrict Ju
17
ECF No. 95.
18
ECF No. 99, Exhibit A.
19
ECF No. 98.
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?