Doe v. Lyft Drives Conn., Inc.

1

DOE ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. LYFT DRIVES CONNECTICUT, INC. ET AL, Defendants.

No. 3:23-cv-00533 (VAB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

February 23, 2024

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND AND MOTION TO DISMISS

VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On March 23, 2023, the minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a civil complaint in Connecticut Superior Court by and through her mother and next friend, Joan Doe, along with Jane Doe's father, John Doe (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Lyft Drives Connecticut, Inc (“Lyft”) and Christopher Harvey (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging negligence, negligent supervision and training negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and retention, and loss of filial consortium. Compl., ECF No 1-1 (Apr. 26, 2023) (“Compl.”).

Lyft has moved to dismiss the Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13 (May 17, 2023) (“Mot. to Dismiss”). Subsequently, Plaintiffs moved to amend the Complaint. Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 19 (Jun. 15, 2023) (“Mot. to Amend”).

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to amend. As to the filial consortium claim, the Court DENIES Lyft's motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal upon the resolution of the certified question in L. L. v. Newell Brands Inc. As to the remaining claims, the Court DENIES as moot Lyft's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs shall effect service of process on and file proof of service of the Amended Complaint as to Mr. Harvey by March 29, 2024.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations

On or about January 3, 2022, an alleged agent of Lyft picked up the minor plaintiff, Jane Doe, on a street corner wearing pajama pants, a hoodie, and a bookbag. Compl. ¶¶ 4-6. Lyft's agent then transported Jane Doe across state lines to Mr. Harvey in New York. Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.

On or about January 3, 2022, through January 5, 2022, Mr. Harvey allegedly made unwanted and/or unwarranted sexual and physical contact with Jane Doe. Id. at 13 ¶ 3.

As a result, Jane Doe alleges pain and suffering, both mental and physical. Id. ¶ 16.

B. Procedural Posture

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Connecticut Superior Court. Compl.

On April 26, 2023, Lyft removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Not. of Removal ¶ 5, ECF No. 1 (Apr. 26, 2023) (“Not. of Removal”). Lyft did not obtain consent for removal from Mr. Harvey, claiming that he was not yet properly served with the Summons and Complaint. Id. ¶ 3.

Also on April 26, 2023, the Court adopted an initial pretrial schedule, setting the deadline for amended pleadings for June 25, 2023; the close of discovery for October 26, 2023; and the deadline for dispositive motions for November 30, 2023. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 6 (Apr. 26, 2023) (“Initial Scheduling Order”).

On May 17, 2023, Lyft filed its motion to dismiss. Mot. to Dismiss.

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend their Complaint and an objection to Lyft's motion to dismiss. Mot. to Amend; Pls.' Obj. to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20 (Jun. 15, 2023); Pls.' Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 21 (Jun. 15, 2023) (“Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss”).

On June 29, 2023, Lyft filed a memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss and a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to amend, which are identical documents. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 22 (Jun. 29, 2023); Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 23 (Jun. 29, 2023) (“Opp'n to Mot. to Amend”).

On July 7, 2023, the parties filed their joint Rule 26(f) report. Rule 26(f) Report, ECF No. 24 (Jul.7, 2023).

On July 10, 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order based on the parties' Rule 26(f) report. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 25 (Jul. 10, 2023) (“Scheduling Order”).

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply to Lyft's memorandum in opposition to the motion to amend. Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 27 (Jul. 13, 2023) (“Reply”).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Amend

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may either amend once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service or the earlier of twenty-one days after service of a required responsive pleading or motion under Rule 12(b), (e) or (f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Once that time has elapsed, a party may move for leave to file an amended complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The “court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id.

The decision to grant leave to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 is within the discretion of the court, but the court must give some “justifying reason” for denying leave. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Reasons for denying leave to amend include “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[.]” Id.; see also Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting leave to amend may be denied when amendment is “unlikely to be productive,” such as when an amendment is “futile” and “could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)”).

“While the party seeking to amend its pleading must explain any delay, the party opposing the amendment ‘bears the burden of showing prejudice, bad faith, and futility of the amendment.'” United States ex rel. Raffington v. Bon Secours Health Sys., Inc., 285 F.Supp.3d 759, 766 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Grant v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., No. 10 Civ. 2955 (KNF), 2010 WL 5187754, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2010)).

B. Motion to Dismiss

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Any claim that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” will be dismissed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), a court applies a “plausibility standard” guided by “[t]wo working principles.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

First, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” (alteration in original) (citations omitted)). Second, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, the complaint must contain “factual amplification . . . to render a claim plausible.” Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 589 F.3d 542, 546 (2d Cir. 2009)).

When reviewing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court takes all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court also views the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and draws all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Cohen v. S.A.C. Trading Corp., 711 F.3d 353, 359 (2d Cir. 2013); see also York v. Ass'n of the Bar of N.Y.C., 286 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 2002) (“On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting the complaint's allegations as true.”).

A court considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) generally limits its review “to the facts as asserted within the four corners of the complaint, the documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and any documents incorporated in the complaint by reference.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007). A court may also consider “matters of which judicial notice may be taken” and “documents either in plaintiffs' possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit.” Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993); Patrowicz v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc., 359 F.Supp.2d 140, 144 (D. Conn. 2005).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint to (1) withdraw their claims of negligent supervision, training, hiring, and retention; (2) add a vicarious liability claim; (3) more fully plead their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims; and (4) re-allege their loss of filial consortium claim as derivative of their vicarious liability claim. Mot. to Amend ¶¶ 8, 10-11.

Lyft argues that Plaintiffs' proposed Amended Complaint is untimely and they cannot establish the good cause required for a court to accept an untimely amended complaint. Opp'n to Mot. to Amend at 11-13. Lyft also argues that Plaintiffs' proposed Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and thus is futile. Id. at 13-21.

The Court addresses each argument in turn.

A. Timeliness

“[I]f leave to amend is sought after the deadline imposed by the court's scheduling order, Federal Rule 15's permissive, “freely give[n]” standard governing amendments gives way to Federal Rule 16's more onerous “good cause” standard to modify a scheduling order. Wynne v. Town of E. Hartford, No. 3:20-CV-001834 (JCH), 2022 WL 12347275, at *1 (D. Conn. Oct. 21, 2022) (citing Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 9 F.4th 95, 115 (2d Cir. 2021)). “[A] finding of ‘good cause' depends on the diligence of the moving party.” Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000).

Lyft argues that Plaintiffs are required to-and...