McCoy v. Transdev Servs., Inc.

DANIELLE McCOY, et al. v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.

Civil Action No. DKC 19-2137

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

March 15, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case are a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and a motion to correct that proposed amended complaint (ECF Nos. 95 and 126). The issues have been fully briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint will be granted, and the attempted correction of that complaint will also be granted.¹

I. Background

Defendant Transdev Services, Inc. ("Transdev") is a privately held corporation organized under Maryland law and with its principal place of business in Illinois. It provides paratransitand non-emergency medical transportation services. Previously, the company has operated under two different names, Veolia Transportation, Inc. and Yellow Van Services, Inc., and under two contracts: one with the City of Baltimore ("the City") and one with the State of Maryland. Transdev has operated under both contracts for more than ten years. To complete a portion of the work, under both, Transdev entered into two different subcontracts with Davi Transportation Services, LLC ("Davi"). The job duties for drivers under these contracts involved a central set of tasks that included "picking up, transporting, and dropping off individuals with disability and their aides[,] affixing wheelchairs to the vehicle[,]" and various other tasks related to maintaining the service vehicles.

On July 19, 2019, Plaintiffs Danielle McCoy, Monica Jones, Connie Jones, Sa'quan Miller, Tyree Miles, and Jawhann Price filed a collective action complaint on "behalf of themselves and others similarly situated" for wage violations under the FLSA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., that was joined by Deandre Banks on behalf of himself only. They also brought analogous state statutory wage claims and common law claims as "individual actions,"² under (1) the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), Md.Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-413(b), 3-415(a), and 3-420; (2) the Maryland Living Wage Law ("MLWL"), Md. Code Ann., State Fin. & Proc. § 18-101 et seq.; (3) the Maryland Wage and Payment Collection Law ("MWPCL"), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-502 and 3-505(a); (4) the City's living wage ordinance, Balt. City Code, Art. 5 § 26; and (5) a breach of contract theory based on Transdev's subcontracts with Davi and as third-party beneficiaries of Transdev's contracts with the City and State. In particular, these common-law claims asserted that Transdev breached the "living wage provisions" of those contracts. (ECF No. 1).

With the exception of Mr. Banks, who was a dispatcher and a road supervisor, all were drivers. Plaintiffs complained that they often worked long hours (more than eight hours per day, "consistently" more than forty hours per week, and "often" more than sixty), but were not paid all the wages they were due. The drivers asserted that their wages "nearly always" fell below $7 an hour, "sometimes" below $5, and even below $4 when they were assigned routes with wheelchair pickups; they argued that these wage levels violate both federal and state minimum wage laws, as none of the statutory exemptions purportedly applied. The drivers, for example, complained that they worked between eight and a halfand twelve hours per shift, five days a week, but were only paid between $300 and $900 for a two-week pay period. Mr. Banks, similarly, asserted that he worked ten to twelve hours a day, five days a week, for only $500 to $600 every two weeks, which he argued amounts to a $5 hourly wage. Plaintiffs all alleged that they worked hours above forty on various workweeks but were not paid one-and-half times wages as required under these laws.

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification as a collective, to toll the statute of limitations for all members of that collective from November 18, 2019, and for court-authorized notice under 29 U.S.C. §216(b). (ECF No. 27). On May 11, 2020, these requests were granted. (ECF Nos. 43 and 44); McCoy v. Transdev Servs., Inc., No. DKC 19-2137, 2020 WL 2319117 (D.Md. May 11, 2020). Nine individuals subsequently filled out and sent in opt-in forms noting their "consent to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit": Tyikiava White, Jasmine Goodman, Joseph Parson, Joel Morrison, Stacey Smith, Damon Massie, Jr., Ayana Bluiett, Teresa Miles, and Christina Collins. (See ECF Nos. 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 73). The opt-in period closed on September 8, 2020.

II. Procedural History

On December 8, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint to convert eight of these opt-in Plaintiffs into named Plaintiffs, and thereby to abandon pursuing the claims as a collective action, despite its conditional certification. (ECFNo. 95).³ Plaintiffs contend that they could not possibly have met the deadline initially set for amendment, January 24, 2020 (see ECF Nos. 19 and 20), because the court did not grant conditional certification until May and the opt-in period did not close until that fall. Plaintiffs therefore argue that "good cause exists" under Rule 16(b)(4) to grant this amendment as "amendment 'could not have been reasonably brought in a timely manner.'" (ECF No. 95, at 5) (citing NH Special Events, LLC v. Franklin Exhibs. Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. 8:19-cv-01838-PX, 2019 WL 347699, at *4 (D.Md. Oct. 14, 2020)).

Plaintiffs then contend that amendment is similarly appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), which provides for amendment "when justice so requires." They argue that amendment should be "freely given" where there is no evidence of "unduedelay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant." (ECF No. 95, at 7) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). They contend that "there is no undue prejudice to Transdev, the plaintiffs who joined the lawsuit by filing consents have already been participating as full parties to this case, and the proposed Fist Amended Complaint adds no new claims or legal theories." The addition of these Plaintiffs as named parties would also "promote judicial economy," they assert. While they concede that Transdev intends to move to decertify the collective, they argue they "are confident" that such a motion would fail. This amendment would therefore "obviate[] the need for lengthy and resource-intensive motions practice by converting the case from a collective action into a simple group case with 15 plaintiffs now." (Id., at 1-2,7).

Transdev opposes and first argues that, despite Plaintiffs claims that the opt-in Plaintiffs assert the "same core claims," their wholesale conversion into named Plaintiffs would have them assert state statutory and common law claims that were not raised by the purported collective, but only by the named Plaintiffs individually.⁴ Transdev argues "sever[e]" prejudice on this point:

Had Transdev known that the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs were proceeding on state and common law claims, it would have adopted a different strategy regarding written discovery and depositions. For example, Transdev would have sought more fulsome discovery concerning: (1) whether opt-in Plaintiffs contend that they were either not paid on a regular basis, or not paid upon termination pursuant to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law claim, and (2) their alleged third-party beneficiary status under Transdev's contracts with Maryland and Baltimore City pursuant to the breach of contract claims.

(ECF No. 108, at 4).

Secondly, Transdev argues that the opt-in Plaintiffs have not fully participated in discovery. It argues that "it was unable to complete the properly noticed but recently cancelled depositions of four named and opt-in plaintiffs by the December 15, 2020 discovery deadline." It implies that these failures evidence bad faith: "Each cancellation occurr[ed] after the Court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion to amend Scheduling Order to extend the discovery deadline." (ECF No. 108, at 5-6). Plaintiffs note in their reply, filed on January 5, 2021, however, that the two opt-in Plaintiffs in question are Mr. Morrison and Ms. Smith, who are no longer represented by counsel. Plaintiffs also address theissues preventing the depositions of the named Plaintiffs but, point out, "none of this has any bearing whatsoever on Plaintiffs' Motion." (ECF No. 117, at 4-5).

Third, Transdev contends, as an indication of prejudice, that "opt-in plaintiffs could impact potential damages, and thus Transdev's defense strategy and valuation of this case." It points out that the opt-in Plaintiffs, in seeking to become named Plaintiffs, now seek compensation not just for violations of federal minimum wage laws, but violations of Maryland and Baltimore living wage laws as well. It, however, does not explain how a potential increase in damages fits within the standards for amendment and joinder.⁵

Finally, Transdev argues that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a lack of due diligence or bad faith in moving to amend the complaint when they have. It concedes that Plaintiffs could not have moved to amend the complaint in this fashion until the close of the opt-in period on September 8, 2020. At this point, however, Transdevargues they "were aware of the universe of opt-in plaintiffs" and should have filed their motion promptly. Instead they waited months and filed it on December 8, without explanation. (ECF No. 108, at 7). Plaintiffs provide no such subsequent explanation in their reply other than to say Transdev's focus on this "brief period" is misplaced. (ECF No. 117, at 6). Transdev also argues that undue delay and a lack of due diligence is evident in Plaintiffs' failure properly to bring the state statutory and common law claims on behalf of prospective opt-in Plaintiffs.

Regarding the alleged lack of notice of the added non-FLSA claims,...