Easton v. Asplundh Tree Experts Co
Filing
51
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(SWT)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
8
BRITTANY EASTON,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
v.
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERTS, CO.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. C16-1694RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
COMPLAINT
13
14
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend her
15
Complaint, which seeks permission to add a retaliatory discharge claim against Defendant. Dkt.
16
#47. Defendant opposes the motion arguing that Plaintiff’s proposal is prejudicial, futile and
17
unduly delayed. Dkt. #48. Trial is currently scheduled for March 19, 2018. For the reasons set
18
19
forth herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
20
This is an employment action in which Plaintiff raises claims for violations of
21
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) based on sex (female), intentional
22
infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior, negligent hiring and supervision and failure
23
24
to train, and hostile work environment. Dkt. #1-1. Plaintiff alleges that she had been hired by
25
Defendant as a flagger and was subsequently sexually harassed by her male supervisor. Dkt. #1-
26
1 at ¶ ¶ 1-10. Plaintiff further alleges that after she reported the harassing behavior to another
27
foreman and a supervisor, she suffered retaliation, Defendant failed to take appropriate corrective
28
action, and she was eventually laid off. Id. at ¶ ¶ 12-32.
ORDER
PAGE - 1
1
Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that
[She] complained [] to Mr. Fly on or around August 6, 2015. She was laid
off the following day under the pretense of budget constraints. Plaintiff
alleges that she was in fact fired for her complaints of Mr. Mel’s
inappropriate, harassing, and discriminatory behavior. . . .
2
3
4
5
Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ 24. She does not address the fact that she was rehired again on or around September
6
27, 2015, and continued working until she was laid off again in late October 2015, although she
7
included the fact in her Complaint. Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ 6. Plaintiff did not plead a cause of action for
8
retaliatory discharge. See Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ ¶ 33-45.
9
10
On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff provided her Initial Disclosures to Defendant. In those
11
Disclosures she stated that she had “not determined all damages and claims for special and
12
general damages and Plaintiff will supplement this information.” Dkt. #38, Ex. 4 at 5. She
13
further stated that she may seek “compensatory damages for back pay, front pay, lost benefits
14
and medical expenses.”
Dkt. #38, Ex. 4 at 5.
On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff provided
15
16
Supplemental Disclosures to Defendant repeating the same verbiage.
17
Subsequently, in her discovery responses, Plaintiff objected that inquiries about the amount of
18
her wage loss claim was “beyond the scope of permissible discovery,” but answered:
19
Id., Ex. 5 at 4.
Plaintiff has yet to consult with an economic loss or vocational expert to
determine the actual damages. Plaintiff will supplement with that
information as soon as it becomes available.
20
21
22
Id., Ex. 6 at 10. Plaintiff has never provided Defendant with a specific calculation of her alleged
23
wage loss damages.
24
On October 10, 2017, Defendant moved for partial summary judgment. Dkt. #36.
25
Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s claim for past and future wage loss should be dismissed because
26
27
she failed to plead a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Dkt. #36 at 10-11. The Court agreed.
28
Dkt. #43. First, the Court noted that
ORDER
PAGE - 2
Plaintiff did not include an actual Cause of Action for retaliatory discharge. See
Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ ¶ 33-45. Instead, she pleaded five causes of action as follows: 1)
violation of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) based on
sex (female); 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 3) respondeat
superior; 4) negligent hiring and supervision and failure to train; and 5)
hostile work environment. Id.
1
2
3
4
5
Dkt. #43 at 6. As a result, the Court found that
[t]he allegations contained in Plaintiff’s alleged fact section of her Complaint
do not satisfy the “short and plain statement” requirement included in Rule
8. Plaintiff alleges that she was laid off as a result of her complaints, under
the pretext of budgetary constraints. Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ 24. However, because
she failed to plead a corresponding cause of action for retaliatory discharge,
she does not identify any legal basis for her claim. Plaintiff’s failure to
specifically allege the elements of retaliatory discharge restricted
Defendant’s ability to respond to the alleged cause of action or to conduct
discovery on that cause of action, and makes it nearly impossible for the
Court to evaluate the sufficiency of her allegations. Indeed, the Court cannot
even determine whether she asserts a cause of action under state or federal
law.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Id. at 6-7.
In addition, the Court determined that Plaintiff will be precluded from offering evidence of
lost past and future wages because “[a]t no point in this litigation did plaintiff quantify – even
17
18
roughly – the amount of actual damages she suffered as a result of her layoff.” Dkt. #43 at 7.
19
“In fact, she states she does not intend to ask for any specific amount at trial. However, making
20
certain documents available and promising that someone (in this case Plaintiff) will testify
21
regarding damages is not a “computation” and fails to apprise Defendant of the extent of its
22
exposure in this case.” Id. at 7-8.
23
24
25
Plaintiff now seeks to get around this ruling by moving to amend her Complaint to incude
a claim for retaliation.
26
When a party moves to amend the pleadings after the deadline to amend pleadings has
27
passed, the party must first demonstrate “good cause” to amend the scheduling order pursuant to
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and then demonstrate that amendment is proper under
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608
3
(9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the
4
party seeking amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot
5
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson, 975 F.2d
6
7
at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983 Amendment)).
8
If the good cause standard is met, the Court turns to the question of whether amendment
9
is proper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given
10
when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with extreme
11
liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)
12
13
(quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court considers whether
14
there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing party,” or “futility of
15
amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). “Not
16
all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. . . . [I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the
17
18
opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (citation
19
omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice.” DCD
20
Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong
21
showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in
22
favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.
23
24
In this case, the Court never set a deadline for amending pleadings. See Dkt. #12. As a
25
result, Plaintiff is not required to seek a modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order, and the
26
“good cause” standard is not implicated. Accordingly, the Court turns to whether amendment is
27
proper in light of the Foman factors.
28
ORDER
PAGE - 4
1
Defendant primarily argues that Plaintiff has unduly delayed in bringing the instant
2
motion and that to add the proposed retaliation claim now would prejudice it. The Court agrees.
3
This Court has defined ‘undue delay’ as a “delay that prejudices the nonmoving party or imposes
4
unwarranted burdens on the court.” Mansfield v. Pfaff, No. C14-0948JLR, 2014 U.S. Dist.
5
LEXIS 105997, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 1, 2014). The test for “undue delay” requires
6
7
consideration of (1) the length of the delay measured from the time the moving party obtained
8
relevant facts; (2) whether discovery has closed; and (3) proximity to the trial date. Wizards of
9
the Coast LLC v. Cryptozoic Entm’t LLC, 309 F.R.D. 645, 652 (W.D. Wash. 2015).
10
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff
11
unduly delayed in bringing her proposed claim, and that she could have done so from the time
12
13
this case was removed to federal court. See Dkt. #48 at 5-9. Indeed, Plaintiff admitted to the
14
Court previously that she pled a retaliatory discharge claim in her complaint to the EEOC prior
15
to filing this lawsuit, and now argues that she simply chose to proceed with state claims alone.
16
Dkts. #40 at 9 and #50 at 5. Further, Plaintiff discussed with Defendant early in this case a
17
18
proposed Amended Complaint that would add a claim for retaliatory discharge. Dkt. #49 at ¶ ¶
19
2-3 and Exs. A and B thereto. Although Defendant declined to stipulate to the amendment,
20
Plaintiff never filed a motion to amend. Plaintiff claims now that she did not file such a motion
21
because she felt she had adequately pled such a claim in her original Complaint. Dkt. #50 at 5.
22
However, counsel’s correspondence and proposed Amended Complaint belie that assertion. Dkt.
23
24
#49, Exs. A and B.
25
Moreover, discovery in this matter is now closed, and trial is just two months away.
26
Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant already has complete discovery on any retaliation
27
claim, the Court has already ruled to the contrary. See Dkt. #43.
28
ORDER
PAGE - 5
1
“Prejudice” exists where an amendment creates “undue difficulty in prosecuting a lawsuit
2
as a result of a change of tactics or theories on the part of the other party.” Mansfield, 2014 U.S.
3
Dist. LEXIS 105997, at *11-12; see also Deakyne v. Cmmsrs. of Lewes, 416 F.2d 290, 300 (3d
4
Cir. 1969); Amersham Pharacia Biotech, Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 190 F.R.D. 644, 648 (N.D.
5
Cal. 2000). The nonmoving party has the burden to show “that it was unfairly disadvantaged or
6
7
deprived of the opportunity to present facts or evidence which it would have offered had the . . .
8
amendments been timely.” Mansfield, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105997, at *11-12 (citing Bechtel
9
v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989)). “As a corollary, delay alone is not sufficient to
10
establish prejudice, nor is a need for additional discovery.” Id. For the reasons set forth above,
11
the Court agrees that adding a claim for retaliatory discharge now would cause prejudice.
12
13
14
15
Accordingly, this Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt.
#47) is DENIED.
DATED this 12 day of January, 2018.
16
17
A
18
19
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 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?