Hudson, Jr. v. American Federation of Government Employees
Civil Action No. 2017-1867
| D.D.C. | Oct 5, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Eugene Hudson, Jr., a senior AFGE official, sued on Sept. 12, 2017 alleging his termination violated the LMRDA, LMRA, and contract law; the First Amended Complaint (Feb. 13, 2018) is operative.
- Hudson moved in May 2019 to add race-discrimination claims; the Court denied that motion in an earlier opinion (Hudson II) for delay, misrepresentation, and prejudice.
- Hudson filed a separate, related race-discrimination suit (No. 17-2094) that went to jury trial and resulted in a $100,000 verdict for him.
- He now seeks leave to file a Proposed Third Amended Complaint (146 pages, 17 counts) adding § 1981, tort and contract claims, and 16 new individual defendants; discovery has closed.
- AFGE opposes, citing undue delay, prejudice, and futility; it notes most alleged “new” events predate October 2020 and that Hudson gave no justification for the late amendment.
- The Court denied leave to amend, relying on undue delay, potential prejudice from reopening the case, the irrelevance of many proposed additions, and the Court’s prior findings about Hudson’s conduct and representations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / undue delay | Hudson claims newly available information justifies amendment | AFGE says Hudson waited years and gives no reason for delay | Denied: undue delay independently sufficient to deny leave to amend |
| Futility / scope of new claims (e.g., race discrimination, § 1981) | Hudson contends new facts support additional claims | AFGE and Court: many claims were previously considered and barred; complaint overlong and not required to plead evidentiary detail | Denied: adding these claims would be futile and conflict with prior rulings |
| Prejudice to defendant (reopening discovery; case complexity) | Hudson implies additions are necessary to present full case | AFGE: amendment would restart case, add many parties and counts after discovery closed | Denied: undue prejudice because amendment would significantly delay and complicate litigation |
| Plaintiff's prior conduct / misrepresentation | Hudson asserts he now has more information to amend | AFGE and Court point to Hudson II findings that he knew earlier and misstated the record | Denied: prior findings of strategic choice and misrepresentation weigh against amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (leave to amend should be freely given but denial may be warranted for sufficient reasons)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend absent sufficient reason)
- Trudel v. SunTrust Bank, 924 F.3d 1281 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (undue delay is a valid ground to deny leave to amend)
- Elkins v. District of Columbia, 690 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (similar treatment of undue delay as denial basis)
- Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (undue delay can justify denying amendment)
- Nwachukwu v. Karl, 222 F.R.D. 208 (D.D.C. 2004) (non-movant generally bears burden persuading court to deny leave to amend)