Addison v. Reitman Blacktop, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106150
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Plaintiffs Addison and Willet sued their employer entities for FLSA, Labor Law, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.
- First Amended Complaint added Yanderheydt as a plaintiff; Defendants did not respond to the amended complaint initially.
- Plaintiffs sought to amend to add B. Reitman Blacktop, Inc. and B. Reitman, Inc. as defendants; Defendants moved to dismiss if the amendment was denied.
- Court previously grappled with whether Reitman, not an attorney, could appear for corporate defendants and with alleged ‘single integrated enterprise’ conduct.
- The Court granted the amendment to add the two new corporate defendants, with conditions regarding Vanderheydt’s time-period allegations and potential limitations defense.
- Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint was denied as moot once the amendment was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant the amendment to add two new defendants | Plaintiffs argue liberal amendment under Rule 15 and Rule 21; no undue delay or prejudice. | Defendants claim undue delay, bad faith, and futility, especially regarding statute of limitations. | Amendment granted; new defendants added. |
| Whether the claims against B. Reitman Blacktop, Inc. relate back | Relation back under Rule 15(c) because same conduct and notice; Krupski governs ‘mistake’. | Argues no mistake and improper timing; would bar claims if not relation back. | Relates back; Addison’s claims not time-barred; Vanderheydt requires time-period detail. |
| Whether addition of B. Reitman, Inc. is futile | Single integrated enterprise theory makes B. Reitman, Inc. a proper employer. | No basis to add B. Reitman, Inc. as employer; futility due to lack of employer status. | Not futile; plaintiff adequately alleged single-enterprise employer liability. |
| Effect of the cross-motion to dismiss after amendment | Dismissal should be premature given amendment. | Dismissal based on Rule 12(b)(6) if amendment denied. | Cross-motion denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (relation back depends on what the added party knew or should have known)
- VKK Corp. v. National Football League, 244 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2001) (relation back under Rule 15(c) where claims relate to the original pleading)
- Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2005) (single-employer doctrine; factors include interrelation of operations and common control)
- Cook v. Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc., 69 F.3d 1235 (2d Cir. 1995) (factors for determining single employer status; fact-specific inquiry)