Baugh v. Austal U.S., LLC

• Decision Date: 10 April 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:22-00329-KD-C
• Parties: PAUL DAVID BAUGH, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUSTAL USA, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

1

PAUL DAVID BAUGH, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUSTAL USA, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:22-00329-KD-C

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

April 10, 2023

ORDER

KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for leave of Court to amend the complaint (with proposed first amended complaint) (Doc. 25, Doc. 25-1),^[1] the Defendant's consolidated Opposition (Doc. 27), the Plaintiffs' consolidated Reply (Doc. 29) and revised proposed first amended complaint (Doc. 29-1), and the Defendant's consolidated Sur-Reply (Doc 30).^[2]

I. Background

On July 14, 2022, five (5) Plaintiffs Paul David Baugh, Jr. (Baugh) David Dudley (Dudley), Carl Skipper (Skipper), James Vela (Vela), and James Anthony Woods (Woods) (Plaintiffs)^[3] initiated this action against Defendant Austal USA, LLC (Austal USA) in the Southern District of Mississippi (SDMS) (1:22cv180 TBM-RPM). (Doc. 1). On August 22, 2022, this matter was transferred to this Court. (Docs. 8, 9). On September 6 2022, Austal USA answered the complaint. (Doc. 19). On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the present motion for leave of Court to amend the complaint (Docs. 25, 25-1), which was amended with an alternative proposed first amended complaint (Doc. 29-1); briefing was complete in December 2022 (Docs. 27, 29, 30).

II. Rule 15 Amendments & The Proposed First Amended Complaint

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments as follows:

a) Amendments Before Trial.

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

The timeframe for amendment as a matter of course has passed: Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed on July 14, 2022 but the motion to amend was filed on November 1, 2022 (more than 21 days after service of the Complaint); and Austal filed its Answer on September 6, 2022 but Plaintiffs did not move to amend within 21 days after service of same (instead waiting until November 1, 2022 to so move). Thus, Rule 15(a)(2) provides the only avenue for amendment. And absent Austal's consent -- which is not given -- leave of Court is required.

Leave should be freely given “when justice so requires” except in the presence of countervailing factors such as undue prejudice to the opposing party and futility of the amendment. See, e.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Bartrorncs, Inc. v. Power-One, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 532, 534 (S.D. Ala. 2007). “[U]nless a substantial reason exists to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial[.]” City of Miami v. Bank of Am. Corp., 800 F.3d 1262, 1286 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Courts “may consider several factors ... including ‘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, [and] futility of amendment.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1340-1341 (11th Cir. 2014).

Notably, leave to amend may be denied “when such amendment would be futile.” Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004). Per Garrett Inv., LLC v. SE Prop. Hldgs., LLC, 2013 WL 1191237, *2 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 22, 2013):

..... a “district court may deny leave to amend a complaint if it concludes that the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning that the amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss.”... “must be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”... the reviewing court must ‘accept[ ] the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe [ ] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, the ... [claim] ... must “ ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570... (2007). “‘A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Id. quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678... (2009). However, the ... [claim] “need not include detailed factual allegations, but it must set forth ‘more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Id. quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555...

See also e.g., New York Life Ins. Co. v. Grant, 57 F.Supp.3d 1401, 1409-1410 (M.D. Ga. 2014). As stated in Federal Home Loan Corp. v. Brooks, 2014 WL 5410236, *1 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 23, 2014):

...the Federal Rules...require only that a complaint ... provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) ... The complaint must include enough facts “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ... Ultimately, the well-pleaded complaint must present a reasonable inference from the facts it alleges that show a defendant is liable. Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211, 1215 (11th Cir. 2012). To survive...the allegations ... must permit the court based on its “judicial experience and common sense ... to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949...

And per Gulf Coast Mineral, LLC v. Tryall Omega, Inc., 2016 WL 344960, *1 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 27, 2016):

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.... (citation omitted). If there are “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” to support the claim, there are “plausible” grounds for recovery, and a motion to dismiss should be denied. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 .... The claim can proceed “even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The operative Complaint is the Complaint filed in the SDMS. (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges two (2) claims against Austal: 1) Title VII religious discrimination and failure to provide religious accommodation (Count I); and 2) negligence and/or gross negligence as to plaintiffs' religious beliefs and constitutional rights (Count II). (Id.) Plaintiffs then sought leave of Court to amend the Complaint and file a First Amended Complaint to add five (5) new defendants including Austal Limited, Inc. (Austal Ltd.) and Rusty Murdaugh (Murdaugh), John Rothwell (Rothwell), Patrick Gregg (Gregg), and Mike Bell (Bell), because:

-"Austal [Ltd.]'s actions involve direct guidance on how Austal USA was to engage in handling its unvaccinated workforce[]"

-Austal Ltd.'s "executive leadership ... Rothwell and ... Gregg, played a direct role in determining the non-validity of these accommodations, the lack thereof of any allocation of resources, financial or tangible items, to employees during the pandemic, and also pertaining to the believed-to-be coordinated effort between Austal Limited and Austal USA to universally terminate its employees, regardless of disability status or religious beliefs, in an effort to maintain COVID-19 relief, grants, and government awarded prime contracts[]"

-"Murdaugh ... Rothwell ... Gregg ... and ... Bell ...engaged in a coordinated effort to terminate all of its unvaccinated employees as early as July/August 2021, before the public announcement of EO 14042, in an effort to remain eligible for COVID-19 funding and for governmental grants such as the $3.3 billion steel ship contract ... these individuals condoned, approved, and supported the universal termination of 100% of its unvaccinated persons ... in October/November 2021 as well as the conduct undertaken by managers/supervisors overseeing Plaintiffs in these facilities. These individuals were the decision makers who unilaterally lifted the “Austal Vaccine Policy” only 4 months later in March 2022 after universally terminating 600 of its employees within that same timeframe[]"

-"... Murdaugh ... Rothwell... Gregg, and .. .Bell .... were directly responsible for providing a healthy and safe workplace ... [but] ... exclusively targeting unvaccinated workers as a direct threat to the health and safety of the facility ... were not acting in the best interest of their company and to protect its employee's health and safety but instead were possibly engaging in self-interested transactions and had coordinated a step-by step plan of action that was predicated on the removal of 100% of its unvaccinated workforce[]"

-"it is believed through direct communications with Austal employees that these individuals may have been creating and submitting 'fake' and/or 'falsified' COVID-19 vaccination passport cards serving as evidence to Austal USA's Human Resources department as fulfilling its obligation despite misrepresenting the actual truth of their vaccination status."

- "these individuals are believed to have engaged in conduct requiring Austal USA's Human Resources members to accept these vaccination requests without inquiring into the veracity of such cards and/or facilitated a process by

...