Adia v. Grandeur Management, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:17-cv-09349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Adia v. Grandeur Management, Judge Schofield granted in part Adia’s amendment request, excluding an untimely hiring-notice claim and pre-November 29, 2011 damages.
Noel P. Adia and the defendants, including Grandeur Management, Inc.; the ruling determined which proposed New York Labor Law claims and damages allegations could be included in the amended complaint.
What happened
In Noel P. Adia v. Grandeur Management, Inc., et al., Adia asked to file an amended complaint adding three New York Labor Law claims about spread-of-hours wages, hiring wage notices, and wage statements.
The court found that the spread-of-hours and wage-statement claims could be added for conduct occurring on or after November 29, 2011, because they related to facts in the original complaint. The proposed hiring-notice claim concerned work beginning in late August 2011, did not relate back to the original complaint, and would be untimely.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Adia’s application to amend in part. Adia could file the proposed amended complaint by December 18, 2019, but it could not include the hiring-notice claim or damages under New York Labor Law for conduct before November 29, 2011.
The detailed version
- Adia v. Grandeur Management, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-09349
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
An earlier order required Plaintiff to submit a letter explaining the request to amend, the reasons for the amendment, and why any new claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff also had to submit a redlined proposed amended complaint, and Defendants were permitted to respond. The required filings were timely made.
The proposed amended complaint added three causes of action under the New York Labor Law. The proposed claims alleged failure to pay spread-of-hours wages, failure to provide a wage notice when Plaintiff was hired, and failure to provide proper wage statements. The proposed complaint alleged that Plaintiff began working “sometime in late August 2011.”
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally allows amendment of a complaint with permission, but a court may deny permission when amendment would be futile. The court explained that an amended claim may “relate back” to the filing date of the original complaint when it arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence described in the original pleading. Relation back can make an otherwise late claim timely.
The original complaint was filed on November 29, 2017, and alleged facts about Plaintiff’s work hours and working conditions. Based on those allegations, the court found that the proposed spread-of-hours and wage-statement claims related back to the original complaint and were timely to the extent they concerned conduct occurring on or after November 29, 2011.
The proposed hiring-notice claim was different. It was based on an alleged failure to provide notice at the time of hiring, which the proposed complaint placed in late August 2011. The court held that this claim did not relate back to the original complaint, was not timely, and would be futile if filed.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Plaintiff’s application to file an amended complaint was granted in part. Plaintiff could file the proposed amended complaint by December 18, 2019, but the amended complaint could not include the claim for failure to provide a wage notice at the time of hiring. It also could not seek damages under the New York Labor Law for conduct occurring before November 29, 2011.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.