Buckner v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:09-CV-411-BR,5:09-CV-411-BR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BUCKNER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant. |
This matter is before the court on (1) plaintiff Christopher Eugene Buckner's ("plaintiff") motion to amend the complaint; (2) plaintiff's motion for default judgment; and (3) defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.'s ("UPS") motion for summary judgment. The period to respond and reply to these motions has elapsed, and the matters are now ripe for disposition.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, currently works at the UPS hub in Raleigh, North Carolina. (Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 14.) UPS utilizes drivers in multiple positions within the company. (J. Hale Decl., DE # 85-1, ¶ 6.)1 UPS Package Car Drivers are full-time drivers who operate delivery vehicles along pre-assigned delivery routes. (Id. ¶ 5.) Cover Drivers are part-time employees who are formally assigned to load and unload packages inside a UPS facility, but who also have sufficient seniority to spend all or almost all of their time filling in for Package Car Drivers who are out of work for any reason, including vacations, holidays, and medical leave. (Id. ¶ 6.) Because a Cover Driver operates the delivery vehicle assigned to thePackage Car Driver's normal delivery route, the essential job functions of a Cover Driver are identical to that of a Package Car Driver. (Id.) UPS also employs Air Drivers, who are responsible for delivering and picking up packages to be transported by air rather than ground shipment. (Id. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff first began working for UPS as a temporary employee in October 2006, when he applied to become a driver during UPS's "peak season," which runs from Thanksgiving through Christmas. (Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 10, 12, 21.) During his 2006 peak season work, plaintiff drove multiple vehicles for UPS, including package cars, minivans, and 24-foot vans, which are among the largest vehicles a driver can operate without a commercial driver's license. (Id. at 12-13.)
Plaintiff was subsequently hired for part-time permanent employment with UPS in January 2007. (Id. at 14-15, 18, 21.) Soon thereafter, he began performing air driving duties. (Id. at 24.) As an Air Driver, plaintiff never knows which type of vehicle he will be driving for UPS, but he is always ready and willing to perform whatever driving tasks UPS requires of him in whatever vehicle is available. (Id. at 16, 71; J. Hale Decl., DE # 85-1, ¶ 8.)
Shortly after beginning his permanent employment with UPS, plaintiff also began to work as a Cover Driver. (Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 40-42.) Because Cover Drivers at the Raleigh hub can be asked to cover any route or partial route at any of the package centers within the hub, plaintiff never knows what route he will be driving as a Cover Driver. (Id. at 69; J. Hale Decl., DE # 85-1, ¶ 6.) In addition, plaintiff typically drives whatever vehicle is assigned to the route he is covering. Therefore, he does not know what vehicle he will be driving on any given day. (Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 69, 83; J. Hale Decl., DE # 85-1, ¶¶ 6, 8.) Given the variednature of plaintiff's driving duties, he may be asked to drive multiple vehicles during a single day. (Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 71; J. Hale Decl., DE # 85-1, ¶ 6.) Because most of the vehicles at the Raleigh hub weigh in excess of 10,000 pounds, plaintiff regularly operates vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds. (J. Hale Decl., DE # 85-1, ¶ 17 & Ex. 1, DE # 85-2.) In short, plaintiff has been driving for UPS on a daily basis since the outset of his employment. (Id. ¶ 16; Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 36, 45-46.)
Plaintiff commenced this action on 14 September 2009 by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and he attached his complaint to the motion. (DE # 1.) He initially alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and some federal and state administrative code sections. (Compl., DE # 4.) However, the court subsequently dismissed almost all of plaintiff's claims. His overtime claim under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., is the only claim that remains. (See DE ## 28, 36.)
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint on 24 February 2012. (DE # 70.) In his proposed second amended complaint, plaintiff seeks to reassert a claim under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act that was previously dismissed. (See DE ## 4, 28, 29, 36, 37, 70.) If a party wishes to amend his complaint, that party must follow the process set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 15, provided that certain time requirements are met, a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Additional amendments are allowed under Rule 15 only with the permission of the opposing party or withleave of court, and such leave should be freely given "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
However, the process changes once a court enters a scheduling order under Rule 16, imposes a deadline concerning amendments to pleadings, and the deadline expires. At that point, in order for a party to amend a pleading, the party must first establish "good cause" under Rule 16 and then establish the traditional requirements under Rule 15, i.e., the absence of prejudice, futility, and bad faith. Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298-99 (4th Cir. 2008). If the party fails to establish "good cause" under Rule 16, a trial court may deny the motion to amend and need not conduct the inquiry under Rule 15. Id.; see also Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads, 770 F. Supp. 2d 778, 783-84 (E.D.N.C. 2011); Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 268 F.R.D. 264, 266 (M.D.N.C. 2010). As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: "Given their heavy case loads, district courts require the effective case management tools provided by Rule 16." Nourison Rug, 535 F.3d at 298.
"Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard focuses on the timeliness of the amendment and the reasons for its tardy submission; the primary consideration is the diligence of the moving party." Stonecrest Partners, 770 F. Supp. 2d at 784 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, plaintiff's deadline for amending the pleadings was 1 March 2011. (See DE ## 42 at 2; 45; 46.) The proposed amendment comes almost a year after this deadline has passed. However, the amendment is clearly based on facts that plaintiff was aware of at the time that he filed this lawsuit in 2009, as he unsuccessfully asserted the exact same cause of action in his initial complaint. (See DE # 4.) Accordingly, he cannot demonstrate good cause under Rule 16(b). See, e.g., United States v. Godwin, 247 F.R.D. 503, 508 (E.D.N.C. 2007) (). Furthermore, although the court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has provided absolutely no explanation for his delay in filing the proposed amendment. (See DE # 70.) As a result, the motion to amend the complaint will be denied.
Although his pleadings are not a model of clarity, plaintiff appears to have two different overtime claims under the FLSA. First, he asserts that UPS failed to pay him the proper wage rate under the collective bargaining agreement between UPS and the Teamsters labor union for weeks in which he worked overtime. (See, e.g., Am. Compl., DE # 37, at 3 ¶ 2; Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 102-03, 107-10.) Second, plaintiff maintains that UPS made alterations to his electronic time records, which deprived him of the appropriate pay for overtime worked. (See, e.g., Am. Compl., DE # 37, at 3 ¶ 2; Pl.'s Dep., DE # 76-2, at 102, 107, 111-12.) UPS has moved for summary judgment on the overtime claims, arguing that plaintiff is exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions under the federal Motor Carrier Act exemption.
Summary judgment is proper only if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment should be granted only in those cases "in which it is perfectly clear that no genuine issue of material fact remains unresolved and inquiry into the facts is unnecessary to clarify the application of the law." Haavistola v. Cmty. Fire Co. of Rising Sun, Inc., 6 F.3d 211, 214 (4th Cir. 1993). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party and to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The moving party has the burden to show an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The party opposing summary judgment must then demonstrate that a triable issue of fact exists; he may not rest upon mere allegations or denials. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A mere scintilla of evidence supporting the case is insufficient. Id. at 252. "[W]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, disposition by summary judgment is appropriate." Teamsters Joint Council No. 83 v. Centra, Inc., 947 F.2d 115, 119 (4th Cir. 1991).
Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA sets forth the right of employees to receive overtime pay "at a rate not less than...
To continue reading
Request your trial