United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
SHARON
L. GLEASON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court at Docket 42 is Plaintiff CP Anchorage Hotel 2,
LLC, d/b/a Anchorage Hilton's (“Hilton”)
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Defendants Unite
Here! and Unite Here! Local 878 (“the Unions”)
filed a partial opposition at Docket 45. Hilton replied at
Docket 50. The Unions requested oral argument, but it was not
necessary to the Court's determination.
Hilton's
proposed amended complaint removes its cause of action for
intentional interference with contract. The Unions do not
oppose this amendment. It also includes two sets of new
claims One set of claims focuses on the Unions' alleged
activities with respect to the Society of Human Resource
Managers (SHRM); the Unions do not oppose this amendment. The
second set of claims focuses on the Unions' alleged
activities with respect to Holland America; this is the
portion of the proposed amended complaint that the Unions do
oppose.[1]
Hilton
filed its original complaint in this action on March 12,
2018. After the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss, Hilton
filed a notice on November 27, 2018, in which it indicated
that it intended to file a motion to amend Claims One and Two
of the Amended Complaint within 10 court days. The Court then
adopted the parties' proposed deadline to file amended
pleadings of January 28, 2019.[2] That deadline was later extended
to January 31, 2019.[3] The motion for leave to file the amended
complaint was filed on that day.
Under
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
court should “freely grant leave to amend a compliant
when justice so requires.” “The Supreme Court in
Foman v. Davis held that district courts should
consider the following factors in deciding whether to grant
leave to amend: ‘In the absence of any apparent or
declared reason such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, futility of amendment, etc. the leave sought
should, as the rules require, be freely
given.'”[4] “[L]ate amendments to assert new
theories are not reviewed favorably when the facts and theory
have been known to the party seeking amendment since the
inception of the cause of action.”[5]
Here,
the Court finds that leave to amend should be denied for
several reasons. First, the proposed amendment as pled
regarding Holland America would be futile, as the facts
alleged do not plausibly constitute a violation of Section
158(b).[6] The Court finds the Unions' reasoning
on this issue persuasive-running a website and social media
campaigning are not the type of coercive or harassing conduct
that could constitute a violation of Section
158(b).[7] And while the Court can envision specific
forms of aggressive hand billing activities that could
theoretically constitute a violation, the facts as pled in
the proposed amended complaint regarding the Unions'
activities with Holland America do not contain any such
allegations. And alleging facts that “do not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct” is insufficient.[8]
Also,
in light of the timeframe of the alleged conduct-from
“September 2014 and at least through
2016”[9]-the Court finds that Hilton unduly delayed
by not seeking to add this set of claims until late January
2019. Hilton provides no explanation for its delay in raising
the Holland America claims. As the Unions note, Hilton did
not identify these potential claims in its August 2018
filing, although the conduct it complains of is alleged to
have occurred several years ago and long before the inception
of this action.[10]
The
Court also finds that the addition of the Holland America
claims at this time will also unfairly prejudice the Unions.
It would necessitate a completely distinct set of discovery,
for these claims appear to be completely unrelated to the
other factual allegations in the pleadings. In addition, they
are, as noted above, quite old, having allegedly arisen in
2014, such that the likelihood of lost evidence and faded
memories is enhanced.
For the
foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the policy of
permitting liberal amendments of pleadings should not extend
to permit the addition of the Holland America claims.
Therefore, Hilton's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint at Docket 42 is GRANTED in part as to the deletion
of Claim 3 and the addition of the SHRM set of claims, and
DENIED in part as to the proposed Holland America
claims.[11]Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint
consistent with the terms of this order within 7 days.
---------
Notes:
[1] See Docket 42-1 (Proposed
Amended Complaint) at ¶¶ 20-32, 51-52.
[2] See Docket 37 at 7 (Scheduling and
Planning Conference Report) and Docket 38 at 6 (Scheduling
and ...