Nester v. Hampton Inn Princeton
1:13-cv-03336
S.D.W. VaSep 26, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Andrea Nester sued The Hampton Inn Princeton and related entities and individuals in West Virginia federal court over pregnancy-related and employment termination claims.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting federal question jurisdiction based on FMLA and Title VII claims.
- Plaintiff sought leave to amend after the scheduling order deadline to add an overtime-wage claim.
- Proposed amendment added a federal (FLSA) and a state (WPCA/minimum wage) basis for unpaid overtime, rather than new counts.
- Court evaluated the amendment under Rule 16(b) good cause and Rule 15(a) due to timing after the deadline and potential prejudice, finding good cause and not unduly prejudicial.
- The court granted the motion, allowing amendment and directing filing of the amended complaint attached to the reply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause supports Rule 16(b) extension. | Nester diligently sought amendment after reviewing wage data. | Delay and dilatory motive alleged; not justified. | Yes; good cause shown. |
| Whether proposed amendment is futile on the merits. | Overtime claim can be pled under FLSA; pleading suffices. | FLSA coverage and WPCA interplay require facts not yet shown. | Not futile; plaintiff stated a cognizable overtime claim. |
| Whether allowing amendment would prejudice defendants or be futile given current trial date. | Additional time to gather facts manageable; trial five months away. | Potential prejudice if discovery limited. | Not prejudicial; not futile at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 800 F.Supp.2d 662 (D. Md. 2011) (simple overtime claims can state a FLSA claim without detailed hours)
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (new theory not fatal if timely and fairly presented)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (good cause standard governs post-deadline amendments)
- Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250 (S.D. W. Va. 1995) (Rule 16(b) good cause governs after scheduling order deadlines)
- Exec. Risk Indem., Inc. v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 681 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (pleading may state a claim without citing precise legal theory)
- Hatmaker v. Memorial Med. Cntr., 619 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2010) (addressing pleadings and correcting legal theories during litigation)