HALSEY v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.
2:23-cv-22507
D.N.J.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Myles filed a putative collective action under the FLSA against Securitas Security Services alleging unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work.
- The complaint underwent several amendments as various named plaintiffs were substituted in and out due to arbitration agreements and other procedural developments.
- Defendant moved twice to compel arbitration and/or dismiss, with some claims compelled to arbitration and Myles's claim dismissed for insufficient pleading, but with leave to amend granted.
- Plaintiff sought leave to file a second amended and substituted complaint (SAC), expanding changes beyond the initial leave especially seeking to substitute Rachel Bowman as the lead plaintiff and to redefine the proposed collective group to include California employees.
- Defendant objected, arguing procedural failures, futility of claim, and prejudice from frequent plaintiff substitutions and the collective definition change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal under Rule 41(b) for not amending as ordered | Amendment motion was filed because amendments exceeded prior leave | Failure to timely amend as ordered should result in dismissal | No willful abandonment or noncompliance; Rule 41(b) dismissal inappropriate |
| Futility of Bowman’s FLSA overtime claim | SAC cures pleading deficiencies, making Bowman’s claim plausible | SAC does not cure deficiencies, claim still insufficiently pled | Claim is not clearly futile under Rule 15; viability to be tested by dispositive motion |
| Prejudice from substituting lead plaintiff | Substitution justified, no undue prejudice; judicial efficiency served | "Revolving door" of plaintiffs causes undue prejudice | No specific prejudice shown; case is early, substitution allowed |
| Prejudice from removing California exclusion | Change justified due to another case’s dismissal; no prejudice | Expanding collective group is prejudicial | No concrete prejudice; change allowed given early case stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (liberal standard for leave to amend, but can be denied for undue delay, prejudice, or futility)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (court’s discretion to grant or deny leave to amend)
- Massarsky v. General Motors Corp., 706 F.2d 111 (amendment may be denied if it would not withstand a motion to dismiss)
- Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196 (prejudice to non-moving party is the touchstone for denying an amendment)