Amaya v. Roadhouse Brick Oven Pizza, Inc.
285 F.R.D. 251
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Amaya sues under FLSA and NYLL for alleged overtime violations and improper breaks by Roadhouse Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. and Charles Herman.
- Herman is alleged owner/operator and president of Roadhouse; Roadhouse employed Amaya as kitchen laborer for 2000–Jan 2010.
- Canoe the River, Inc. is referenced as a possible employer in defendants’ interrogatories and related discovery responses.
- Plaintiff sought to amend to add Canoe as a party after receiving Canoe-related discovery responses in June 2012.
- The court granted a motion to amend, concluding Canoe should be added; an amended complaint must be filed and served within 14 days; a new summons for Canoe should issue.
- Relation between Canoe and Roadhouse remains unclear, but Canoe and Roadhouse allegedly share offices and are both connected to Herman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may amend to add Canoe as a party | Amaya seeks amendment timely under Rule 15(a) and Rule 21. | Delay, prejudice, and futility arguments support denial. | Timely; amendment granted over objections. |
| Prejudice from adding Canoe | Additional discovery would be required but not unduly burdensome. | New discovery would cause prejudice or delay. | Prejudice not shown; discovery feasible within deadline. |
| Futility of the amendment | Canoe could be an employer under FLSA/NYLL; facts support addition. | Plaintiff misidentifies employer; disputes factual basis. | Amendment not futile; factual issues to be resolved. |
| Procedural vehicle to add a new party | Rule 15 and Rule 21 both permit amendment to add a party. | Court should limit changes to avoid procedural missteps. | Amendment proper; new summons to issue for Canoe. |
| Relation to discovery timeline and scheduling order | Amaya acted within the extension and discovery deadlines. | Delay due to discovery missteps; untimely filing. | Timeliness satisfied; order granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 310 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2002) (leave to amend freely when justice requires; discretion under Rule 15(a))
- Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1991) (discretion to permit amendments; factors for prejudice and futility)
- Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2011) (factors for undue delay and prejudice in amendment)
- SCS Commc’ns, Inc. v. Herrick Co., 360 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2004) (rules governing leave to amend; prejudice and futility considerations)