Orbay v. Harrah's Atl. City Operating Co.

1

EMILY ORBAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARRAH'S ATLANTIC CITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a HARRAH'S HOTEL AND CASINO, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 22-0935(RMB/MJS)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

May 16, 2023

Hon Renee Marie Bumb, Chief United States District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW J. SKAHILL United States Magistrate Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the motion for leave to amend the complaint (“Motion”) filed by plaintiff Emily Orbay and consolidated plaintiff Philip Sarner (“Plaintiffs”) [ECF No. 38]. The Court has received and reviewed the letter brief in opposition filed by defendant Harrah's Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC doing business as, Harrah's Hotel and Casino (“Defendant”) [ECF No. 41] and the letter brief in reply to Defendant's opposition filed by Plaintiffs [ECF No. 44]. The Court exercises its discretion to decide Plaintiffs' Motion without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the reasons that follow and for good cause shown, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek leave^[1] to (1) file a combined joint complaint (now that their individual cases have been consolidated) [ECF No. 38-1 ¶¶ 16-17]; (2) add four individual defendants, all of whom work/worked for Defendant as security guards^[2] [id. ¶ 14]; and (3) add various additional claims against Defendant and the proposed individual defendants^[3] [id. ¶ 15].

Defendant argues in opposition^[4] that Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied because (1) Plaintiffs' Motion has been made with undue delay; (2) the addition of the proposed defendants and claims will “cause severe prejudice” to Defendants; and (3) Plaintiff's cases have already been consolidated, obviating the need for a “cohesive joint complaint.” ECF No. 41.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) (“Rule 15(a)(2)”) advises that in circumstances where a party cannot amend its pleading as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B),^[5] “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”^[6] Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The Third Circuit has adopted a liberal approach to the amendment of pleadings to ensure that “a particular claim will be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities.” Dole v Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Wright, Miller and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol. 6, § 1471 at 505 (2d ed. 1990)). A court may deny a party's leave to amend a pleading “where it is apparent from the record that ‘(1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party.'” United States ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharms. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 849 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 373 (3d Cir. 2000)).

1) Whether Plaintiffs' Motion has been made with undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs knew of the identities of the proposed individual defendants since March 2022,^[7] but did not file their Motion until October 2022 - seven months later. This, Defendant argues, constitutes undue delay under Rule 15(a)(2). ECF No. 41 at 2. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs could have sought to add the proposed additional claims earlier than October 2022. Id. at 3-4. “There have been no facts or information revealed through discovery or depositions that did not exist at the time that Plaintiffs filed their original complaints.”^[8] Id. at 3.

Plaintiffs explain that they learned that the four proposed defendants were involved in the incident “based on the answers [to discovery] provided to date.”^[9] ECF No. 38-1 ¶ 14. Similarly, they argue that Defendant's delay in providing discovery led to their delay in seeking leave to add these defendants to the case. Id. Although Defendant claims to have provided the names of each of the employees involved in the underlying incident with Plaintiffs in its Rule 26 initial disclosures, Plaintiffs argue that the incident report with the employees' names did not indicate which employees were involved in the incident as opposed to which employees were merely witnesses or bystanders. ECF No. 44 at 2. Due to this ambiguity, Plaintiffs' counsel asserts he served more specific interrogatories to discern how each employee was involved. Id. at 2-3. Defendant did not respond to those interrogatories until September 8, 2022, “almost four months after initially requested.” Id. at 3. Relying on this timeline, Plaintiffs argue that filing this Motion in October 2022 was “not a case of [them] sitting on their hands and failing to file for leave to amend the Complaint at an earlier time.” Id. Instead, “[t]his was a matter of discovery not being provided in a timely matter, leaving the Plaintiffs waiting for information.” Id.

Although delay alone is not sufficient to deny a request for leave to amend, see Adams v. Gould Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 868 (3d Cir. 1984), the moving party still must “satisfactorily explain[]” its delay in seeking to amend, see Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Imps., Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 468 (D.N.J. 1990) (quoting Leased Optical Dep'ts v. Opti-Center, Inc., 120 F.R.D. 476, 478 (D.N.J. 1988)). “Generally, courts will deny a request for leave to amend only where the moving party's delay becomes undue, such as when its accommodation creates an ‘unwarranted burden on the court . . . [and] unfair burden on the opposing party.'” Chubb INA Holdings Inc. v. Chang, Civ. No. 16-2354, 2016 WL 6841075, at *5 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2016) (quoting Adams, 739 F.2d at 868).

According to Plaintiffs' counsel's reply letter and attached exhibit [ECF No. 44], although Plaintiffs received the names of these defendants as having been present at the incident during the exchange of initial disclosures, it was not until Plaintiffs' counsel (retained in March 2022) propounded interrogatories on Defendant in May 2022, to which Defendant responded in September 2022, that Plaintiffs learned of the specific roles each guard played in the underlying incident. Plaintiffs then filed this Motion in October 2022. Further, the parties consented to extending the discovery deadlines, and Plaintiffs filed this Motion before the deadline to move to amend the pleadings or add parties passed. ECF No. 34. According to Plaintiffs' counsel's representations, Plaintiffs could not have identified which defendants were specifically involved in the incident until Defendant gave them more specific information, which was produced during the exchange of interrogatories. See Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 225 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (quoting In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litig., Civ. No. 03-1556, 2006 WL 433891, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2006). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not acted with undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive in seeking to add the proposed defendants and the proposed additional claims until the time of their Motion.

2) Whether granting Plaintiffs' Motion will prejudice Defendant

Defendant argues that adding the proposed individual defendants at this time “will cause severe prejudice” to Defendant because Defendant “will be forced to incur additional costs for written discovery, investigation and depositions of these defendants.” ECF No. 41 at 3. Additionally “the individuals identified by Plaintiffs are employees and/or ex-employees of Defendant which would require Defendant to potential[ly] defend these individuals in this action. If that is the case, Defendant will be forced to prepare defenses against new legal theories and claims brought directly against the individually named security officers rather than just the claims against Defendant which Defendant has been preparing its defenses exclusive for nearly a year.” Id. Defendant will also have to re-depose Plaintiffs because “the scope of the Defendant's examination [of Plaintiffs] did not consider having to defend against claims brought against individual security officers.” Id.

Defendant also argues it will be prejudiced if Plaintiffs are permitted to add the additional claims against Defendant and the proposed individual defendants because “Plaintiffs have already been deposed in this matter. The depositions were tailored to the allegations against Defendant at the time of the depositions. Had Plaintiffs included these counts in their original complaints as they should have, the allegations would have been addressed at Plaintiffs' depositions.” Id.

Plaintiffs argue that there will be no prejudice to Defendant because it “knew or should have known [its] employees would be personally named to this lawsuit once their roles in the incident were revealed and that new counts would also be added.” ECF No. 44 at 4. Plus, Defendant can depose the Plaintiffs again. Id. “As such,” Plaintiffs argue, “the Defendants cannot now claim to be prejudiced by any delay caused in adding new parties or adding additional counts since they are the ones who did not provide the requested discovery on time.”^[10] Id.

Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice sufficient to deny leave to amend under Rule 15(a). See, e.g. Dole, 921 F.2d at 488; Brentley v. City of Pittsburgh, Civ. No. 20-0489, 2021 WL 2474419, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 17, 2021). “Prejudice is considered ‘undue' when it rises to such a level that the non-moving party would be ‘unfairly disadvantaged or deprived of the opportunity to present facts or evidence.'” Chubb INA Holdings, Civ. No. 16-2354, 2016 WL 6841075, at *5 (quoting Harrison Beverage, 133 F.R.D. at...