97 F. Supp. 3d 40
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiffs (three named RMs) sued Ecolab under the FLSA and state wage laws (NY, NJ) alleging misclassification and unpaid overtime; they sought collective/class relief.
- Plaintiffs moved to amend to add four opt‑in FLSA plaintiffs and representative state‑law claims for Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington; Ecolab consented to PA and WA but opposed IL and NC.
- Ecolab first received Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint on April 15, 2014; Plaintiffs filed the original complaint on September 11, 2012.
- Magistrate Judge Scanlon recommended allowing the amendments under Rule 15(a) but denied relation back to the original filing date under Rule 15(c); plaintiffs objected only to the relation‑back ruling.
- District Judge Matsumoto adopted the R&R: amendments allowed only to the extent claims were timely as of April 15, 2014 (i.e., no relation back to Sept. 11, 2012).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to add four plaintiffs and their state claims should be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) | Amendments are timely and justice favors allowing addition of plaintiffs and state claims | Ecolab argued futility/prejudice for IL and NC claims (first‑filed and substantive defects) | Granted: Rule 15(a) leave allowed; no futility or undue prejudice at this stage (claims limited later by timeliness) |
| Whether the newly added state claims relate back to original complaint under Rule 15(c)(1)(B) (fair notice) | Original nationwide FLSA complaint and reservation of rights provided fair notice; state claims arise from same conduct | No fair notice: FLSA collective ≠ notice of later-added multi‑state opt‑out classes; differing statutes/tolling and class sizes matter | Denied: relation back under 15(c)(1)(B) not allowed for added plaintiffs and state classes because defendant lacked fair notice |
| Whether Rule 15(c)(1)(C) (adding parties) permits relation back without a showing of "mistake" | Plaintiffs contend mistake requirement not applicable to adding plaintiffs; only notice and lack of prejudice required | Ecolab: even if notice existed, plaintiffs cannot show mistake as required; rule applies analogously | Denied: Court follows Second Circuit/Advisory guidance that mistake requirement applies to additions of plaintiffs and plaintiffs failed to show mistake, so relation back denied |
| Whether state‑law relation‑back doctrines (IL, NC, PA, WA) are more favorable than federal Rule 15(c) | Plaintiffs urged applying more generous state rules to secure relation back | Ecolab argued state rules do not help; some states’ relation‑back tests mirror or are stricter than federal rule | Denied: none of the relevant state rules provided a basis for relation back on these facts (Illinois ≈ federal; NC/PA/WA not more generous or have additional limits) |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (class filing tolls statute of limitations and furnishes defendants notice of the class’s scope)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (U.S. 2010) (relation‑back rule requires inquiry into what the added party knew or should have known and clarifies the “mistake” inquiry)
- Stevelman v. Alias Research Inc., 174 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1999) (Rule 15(c) central inquiry is whether the original pleading gave adequate notice of the matters raised in the amendment)
- Levy v. United States Gen. Accounting Office, 175 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 1999) (applies Rule 15(c)(1)(C) in context of adding plaintiffs and requires mistake showing)
- Slayton v. American Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (relation back occurs where amended complaint merely makes prior allegations more definite and precise)
- Cliff v. Payco Gen. Am. Credits, Inc., 363 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff’s state‑limited class did not give defendant fair notice of later proposed nationwide class; relation back denied)