Giuca v. Nassau Anesthesia Assocs.

• Decision Date: 10 August 2022
• Docket Number: CV 21-3814 (GRB)(ARL)
• Parties: MATTHEW GIUCA, M.D. and CARL SCHMIGELSKI, M.D. Plaintiffs, v. NASSAU ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

MATTHEW GIUCA, M.D. and CARL SCHMIGELSKI, M.D. Plaintiffs,
v.
NASSAU ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants.

No. CV 21-3814 (GRB)(ARL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 10, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ARLENE R. LINDSAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court, on automatic referral from District Judge Brown, is the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages in connection with their fourth cause of action for a violation of Section 741 of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). The defendants oppose the motion. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the motion be denied.

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2021, the plaintiffs, Matthew Giuca, M.D. (“Giuca”) and Carl Schmigelski, M.D. (“Schmigelski”), commenced this action against their employer, Nassau Anesthesia Associates, P.C. (“NAA”) and Envision Healthcare Corporation (“Envision”), for breach of contract, violations of Article 6, Section 215 and Section 741 of the NYLL, violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The crux of the plaintiffs' complaint is that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital to which they were assigned by the defendants refused to provide appropriate personal protective equipment (“PPE”), creating a severe public safety risk to physicians, staff and patients. Specifically, the

1

plaintiffs allege that when they complained to the hospital about the need for appropriate PPE, their employers retaliated against them for their complaint about the attendant safety risks resulting from the lack of adequate PPE. For example, the plaintiffs claim that in retaliation for their complaints, the defendants deducted 30% from their earned wages from April 2020 to May 2020 and subsequently deducted an additional 15% through June 2020. In addition, unrelated to the healthcare crisis, the plaintiffs allege that they complained to human resources and other senior executives at the defendants about the unlawful racist and sexist misconduct of one of the defendants' other physicians towards other employees at the hospital. The plaintiffs contend that they were retaliated against for making those complaints as well. Finally, Giuca claims that he suffers from a disability that was exacerbated by the defendants' mistreatment and that the defendants have failed to satisfy their obligations under the ADA.

On September 21, 2021, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Shortly thereafter, Magistrate Judge Tomlinson scheduled an initial conference in this matter. However, before the conference was held, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. On November 8, 2021, the undersigned directed the parties to submit a Rule 26(f) report, which they did. On January 12, 2022, the undersigned then held a conference with the parties at which time their proposed discovery schedule was adopted. Among other things, the parties proposed that any motion or stipulation to amend the pleadings would be filed by January 10, 2022.

On January 17, 2022, the Court entered the Scheduling Order for this case. Because the proposed deadline for moving to amend pleadings had already past, the Court extended that deadline to February 14, 2022. Then, on February 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint without leave of Court.^[1] In fact, the plaintiffs did not file a motion seeking leave to

2

amend the complaint until April 1, 2022. Four days later, that motion was denied as being in violation of the undersigned's bundle rule. The plaintiffs renewed their motion on April 22, 2022, the motion now before the Court.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Generally, a motion to amend should be denied “only for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, futility of the amendment or prejudice to the other party.” Crippen v. Town of Hempstead, No. 07-CV-3478 (JFB)(ARL), 2013 WL 2322874, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2013); see Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (“[M]otions to amend should generally be denied in instances of futility, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice to the nonmoving party.”). Nevertheless, where, as here, a Court has issued a scheduling order, pursuant to Rule 16, such an order “may be modified only for good cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Thus, “despite the lenient standard of Rule 15(a), a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the pleadings after the deadline set in the scheduling order where the moving party has failed to establish good cause.” Parker v. Columbia Pictures...