HALSEY v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.
2:23-cv-22507
D.N.J.May 19, 2025Background
- This is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., brought by security guards alleging unpaid overtime due to required off-the-clock work.
- The named plaintiffs shifted multiple times due to arbitration agreements and other issues; as of the current motion, Plaintiff Rachel Bowman seeks to be substituted as lead plaintiff.
- The prior complaint was dismissed for insufficient pleading, but leave to amend was granted; Plaintiff now seeks to file a second amended complaint (SAC) with new allegations, a new lead plaintiff, and modified collective definition (removing a prior California exclusion, as related litigation was dismissed).
- Defendant argues against the motion to amend, contending it should be denied for procedural reasons, futility, and prejudice due to repeated plaintiff substitutions and the altered collective definition.
- No discovery or initial conference has occurred; the only activity has been pre-answer motion practice.
- The Court considers the motion to amend under the liberal standard of Rule 15, not as a sanctionable failure under Rule 41(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to file second amended complaint is proper | Leave to amend should be granted to cure pleading deficiencies and to add new plaintiff and expand collective | Amendment improper; plaintiff didn't file original amendment as authorized, and repeated changes are prejudicial | Leave to amend granted under liberal Rule 15 standard |
| Whether substitution of new lead plaintiff is permissible | Substitution is justified due to arbitration agreements and is not prejudicial | "Revolving door" of plaintiffs is unfair and prejudicial | Substitution allowed; no undue prejudice at this stage |
| Whether removal of California exclusion is permissible | Gandy action for CA employees dismissed; no reason to exclude CA workers now | Removal of exclusion is prejudicial | Amendment removing exclusion allowed; no material prejudice |
| Whether new FLSA claim is sufficiently pleaded (futility) | New SAC cures prior pleading deficiencies and plausibly alleges unpaid overtime | Proposed claim remains insufficient and should be denied as futile | SAC not clearly futile; amendment may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (sets the standard for dismissal as a sanction under Rule 41)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (discretionary criteria for denying leave to amend a pleading under Rule 15)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (court’s discretion in deciding motions to amend pleadings)
- Massarsky v. General Motors Corp., 706 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1983) (leave to amend may be denied if amendment would not withstand motion to dismiss)
- Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2006) (prejudice is key factor for denying amendment under Rule 15)