St. Felix v. Guardsmark, LLC
| Decision Date | 19 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | 3:13-CV-00447-BR |
| Parties | JOHN SAINT FELIX, Plaintiff, v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
GERALD NOBLE
Invision Law Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL J. SANDMIRE
Ater Wynne, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion (#12) for Summary Judgment of Defendant Guardsmark, LLC and the Motion (#37) for Leave to Amend Pleading of Plaintiff John Saint Felix.
For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion (#12) for Summary Judgment, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (#37) for Leave to Amend Pleading, and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted:
Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an employment agreement (Agreement) on October 26, 2011. Paragraph 19 of the Agreement provides:
All legal disputes between the parties shall be resolved in accordance with the Guardsmark Dispute Resolution Policy [(DRP)]. . . . Except for charges or claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or under any of the statutes enforced by said agency, any legal action or proceeding relating to or arising out of this Agreement or the employment of Employee by GUARDSMARK must be brought by Employee within six months of the date the cause of action arose or it shall be time-barred.
Emphasis added.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a security officer from November 2, 2011, until Defendant terminated Plaintiff'semployment "no later than August 9, 2012." The parties agree Plaintiff's claims in this matter arose no later than August 9, 2012.
Despite reference to a DRP in Paragraph 19 of the Agreement, Defendant did not have such a policy either at the time that Plaintiff signed the Agreement or at any time during Plaintiff's employment. Defendant, however, did not inform Plaintiff that it did not have a DRP at any point during that period.
On February 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant in state court1 alleging causes of action against Defendant for employment discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.030 and interference with Oregon Family Medical Leave Act (OFMLA) rights under Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 659A.183 and 659A.159 and retaliation arising from Plaintiff invoking his OFMLA rights. The claims asserted by Plaintiff in this matter do not arise under any statutes enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
On March 15, 2013, Defendant removed this case to this Court. On May 23, 2013, this Court issued a Case Management Order (#10) setting a deadline of October 31, 2013, for the parties to amend their pleadings.
On July 3, 2013, Defendant filed its Motion (#12) forSummary Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff's claims are all time-barred pursuant to Paragraph 19 of the Agreement. The Court heard oral argument on Defendant's Motion (#12) on December 20, 2013.
At oral argument Plaintiff argued for the first time that Defendant should be equitably estopped from relying on a statute of limitations defense because Defendant allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Agreement on which the Motion is based before June 6, 2013. If he had received a copy of the Agreement from Defendant sooner, Plaintiff argued he could have filed claims against Defendant with the EEOC and thereby effectively extended the time within which the Agreement requires claims to be brought. Based on these new arguments, Plaintiff requested leave of Court to supplement the record in response to Defendant's motion. Because it appeared to the Court that Plaintiff's counsel may not have been aware of information relevant to the period within which the Agreement required Plaintiff to file his claims in this matter, the Court granted Plaintiff's oral motion for leave to supplement his pleadings.2
On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum (#40) in Response to Defendants' Motion as well as hisMotion (#37) for Leave to Amend Pleading to add claims against Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Title VII).
The Court took Defendant's Motion (#12) and Plaintiff's Motion (#37) under advisement on February 5, 2014.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides a party may amend a pleading after a responsive pleading has been filed only by leave of court unless the opposing party consents to the amendment. Rule 15(a), however, also provides leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." This policy is to be applied with "extreme liberality." Moss v. United States Secret Svc., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009).
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Plaintiff requests leave to amend his Complaint to add claims for discriminatory reprimands/discipline, retaliation, and discriminatory termination under Title VII and to include a prayer for attorneys' fees pursuant to Title VII. Plaintiff contends he failed to assert these claims sooner because Defendant improperly withheld a copy of the Agreement until June 6, 2013, which was one day after the EEOC statute of limitations on Plaintiff's Title VII claims had run.
Defendant contends Plaintiff should not be granted leave to file an amended complaint to add Title VII claims because (1) Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why he did not assert these claims prior to the October 31, 2013, deadline for amending pleadings pursuant to the Case Management Order (#10) and (2) Plaintiff's proposed amendment is futile because (a) Plaintiff waived his right to assert Title VII claims when he filed this lawsuit in state court and (b) his Title VII claims are, in any event, time-barred. The Court agrees.
When a case-management order sets a deadline for amending pleadings and the deadline has passed, the liberal policy regarding amendment of pleadings no longer applies.Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co. , 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2002). The modification of a scheduling order to allow amendment under such circumstances requires leave of Court and a showing of good cause. Id.
Pursuant to Local Rule 16-3, a party seeking leave to amend its Complaint after the case-management order deadline must:
(1) Show good cause why the deadlines should be modified.
(2) Show effective prior use of time.
(3) Recommend a new date for the deadline in question.
(4) Show the impact of the proposed extension upon other existing deadlines, settings, or schedules.
Although Plaintiff contends he received a copy of the Agreement on June 6, 2013, the Court notes he did not raise the issue of Defendant's allegedly late production of the Agreement until more than six months later on December 20, 2013, and did not attempt to amend his Complaint until January 17, 2013. Even if Plaintiff is correct that Defendant is somehow at fault for failing to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Agreement sooner and even if such late production was the reason that Plaintiff was unaware of the time-limitation provisions in the Agreement as they relate to his proposed EEOC claims, Plaintiff has not offered any reason for his failure to seek to amend his Complaint in the almost five months between his receipt of the Agreement on June 6, 2013, and the October 31, 2013, case-management deadline for such proposed amendments.
Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiff has not shown good cause for his failure to seek to amend his Complaint sooner.
Defendant also argues Plaintiff's Motion should be denied because Plaintiff's proposed amendments are futile.
A proposed amendment to a complaint "'is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment . . . that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim.'" Sweaney v. Ada Cnty., Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997)(quoting Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988)). See also Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008)(proposed amendment to a complaint is futile when the "complaint could not be saved by any amendment."). A plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits rather than on a motion to amend unless it appears beyond doubt that the proposed amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Miller, 845 F.2d at 214. See also AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 957 (9th Cir. 2006).
Defendant contends Plaintiff's proposed amendments to add Title VII claims are futile at this point because those claims were time-barred when Plaintiff filed this action onFebruary 13, 2013. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), a plaintiff has 180 days to file a charge with the EEOC. The 300-day statute of limitations referenced by Plaintiff is, in fact, an extension to the 180-day statute of limitations applicable only when the plaintiff has first instituted proceedings with the which is the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries in Oregon. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) provides:
A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and notice of the charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial