Dieffenbauch v. Rhinehart Railroad Construction, Inc.
8:17-cv-01180
N.D.N.Y.Feb 8, 2021Background:
- Named Plaintiff James Dieffenbauch, a Rhinehart operator/laborer (June 2016–Oct 2017), alleges Rhinehart failed to pay compensable travel time, violating the FLSA overtime provision.
- Court conditionally certified a collective of Rhinehart railroad workers in PA, NC, NY, MA, and MD (Oct 2014–present); 43 individuals opted in.
- Defendant served document requests and interrogatories; four opt-ins were deposed; discovery disputes arose concerning 19 out-of-state opt-ins and compliance by certain opt-ins.
- Defendant filed (1) a Motion to Dismiss claims of 19 out-of-state opt-ins for lack of personal jurisdiction (filed July 7, 2020), (2) a Motion to Amend that motion to withdraw an assertion it had pleaded the defense in its Answer, and (3) a Discovery Motion seeking to compel responses or dismiss noncompliant opt-ins (filed July 6, 2020).
- The Court (Feb. 8, 2021) granted the Motion to Amend to withdraw the asserted pleading claim, denied the Motion to Dismiss (finding the personal-jurisdiction defense waived and amendment futile), and denied the Discovery Motion as untimely.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Amend (withdraw assertion that PJ was pleaded in the Answer) | Plaintiffs did not meaningfully oppose; they misunderstood relief sought | Defendant seeks leave to withdraw its claim that the Answer pleaded lack of personal jurisdiction; cited Rule 15 (misapplied) | Granted — withdrawing an argument causes no prejudice and does not harm judicial economy |
| Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (waiver) | Defendant waived PJ defense by failing to plead it in its Answer and by delaying filing | Defendant argues waiver excused by intervening authority and relies on Hawknet to excuse late assertion | Denied — defense waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); Hawknet inapplicable; cannot now assert PJ |
| Motion to amend Answer to add PJ defense | N/A (Plaintiffs oppose) | Defendant alternatively sought leave to amend its Answer to add PJ defense | Denied as futile — Rule 12(h) waiver not cured by post-answer amendment |
| Discovery Motion (compel or dismiss noncompliant opt-ins) — timeliness | Motion is untimely under Local Rule 16.2 and no adequate good-cause shown | Characterizes filing as dispositive (requests dismissal), thus within extended dispositive-motion deadline | Denied — motion is non-dispositive, untimely under Local Rule 16.2, and good cause not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies, 590 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2009) (waiver of PJ argument on appeal; facts distinguishable)
- Mendoza v. Microsoft, Inc., 1 F. Supp. 3d 533 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (Rule 15 governs amendment of pleadings, not motions)
- Holzsager v. Valley Hosp., 646 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1981) (personal-jurisdiction defense may be unavailable only if truly unknown when it could first be raised)
- Cross v. Simons, 729 F. Supp. 588 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (allowing amendment of a motion to dismiss in certain circumstances)
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. Trizetto Grp., 328 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (motions seeking dispositive sanctions may nonetheless be treated as non-dispositive if dispositive relief is not imposed)