Lee v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp.
912 F.3d 1049
7th Cir.2019Background
- Current and former Metra employees filed suit alleging racial discrimination, hostile work environment, ADA and Title VII claims, retaliation, and state-law torts and breach of contract; pleadings progressed through multiple amendments.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for pleading deficiencies (unclear who was sued for what, paragraph numbering problems, failure to allege conduct by certain defendants).
- Plaintiffs filed an amended second amended complaint after mistakenly filing the wrong version; the district court gave them an option to refile or take a week to further amend; plaintiffs filed an amended second amended complaint.
- Defendants renewed a motion to dismiss, arguing the operative complaint still failed to give notice as to which defendants committed which acts and raised several substantive defects (RLA preemption of contract claims; ICivil Rights Act misapplied to employment; Title VII and ADA cannot be sued against individuals; conclusory retaliation claims).
- Plaintiffs did not meaningfully respond to the motion to dismiss: their brief cited no legal authority, did not address the Rule 12(b)(6) standard or elements of claims, and failed to explain how a proposed third amended complaint would cure deficiencies.
- The district court denied leave to file a third amended complaint for repeated failure to cure deficiencies and granted the motion to dismiss as plaintiffs waived opposition by failing to defend their pleadings; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15(a)(2) | Plaintiffs argued futility not shown and justice required another chance | Defendants argued plaintiffs had repeated failures to cure defects despite multiple chances | Denied: district court did not abuse discretion given repeated failures to cure |
| Whether complaint provided required notice of claims and defendants | Plaintiffs relied on liberal notice pleading standard and urged leniency | Defendants argued complaint failed to identify which defendants committed which acts and misnumbered paragraphs | Dismissed for failure to provide adequate notice; plaintiffs waived opposing arguments by not defending pleaderings |
| Whether specific substantive claims survived dismissal (RLA preemption, Title VII/ADA against individuals, ICRA applicability, retaliation pleading) | Plaintiffs offered conclusory responses and no legal authority | Defendants argued RLA preempts contract claim; Title VII/ADA do not authorize suits against individuals; ICRA not an employment statute; retaliation allegations conclusory | Court accepted defendants’ substantive criticisms; plaintiffs forfeited meaningful challenge by not addressing these arguments |
| Whether plaintiffs’ failure to respond constitutes waiver forfeiting appellate review | Plaintiffs contended pleading liberalism should excuse deficiencies | Defendants maintained lack of response forfeited issues and justified dismissal | Held waiver: failure to develop arguments in district court forfeits them on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Amendola v. Bayer, 907 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1990) (district court well situated to assess amendment requests)
- Bohen v. City of East Chicago, 799 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1986) (deference to district court on amendment rulings)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (factors for denying leave to amend)
- Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2002) (denial of leave after repeated failures to cure not abuse)
- Emery v. Am. Gen. Fin. Inc., 134 F.3d 1321 (7th Cir. 1998) (court need not grant endless opportunities to amend)
- O'Boyle v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., 910 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (failure to raise argument in district court waives it on appeal)
- Everroad v. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2010) (same)
- Taubenfeld v. AON Corp., 415 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2005) (same)
- Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2005) (a complaint can be dismissed when plaintiff offers no legal argument to defend it)