Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCloud v. Applied Integrated Technologies, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 5, 2019

SPENCER McCLOUD, Plaintiff,
v.
APPLIED INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          Jolie A. Russo United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Spencer McCloud moves to amend his complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion should be granted in part and denied in part.

         BACKGROUND

         Defendant Applied Integrated Technologies, Inc. provides security staffing to federal agencies. Def.'s Resp. to Mot. Amend 2 (doc. 26). In June 2012, plaintiff was hired as a “security officer” by defendant and offered the following benefits “pursuant to a private employment agreement”: “$22.03 per hour in wages; [a] fringe benefit allowance for health insurance in the amount of $4.75 per hour (up to 40 hours per week); 10 paid holidays per year; 10 paid vacation days per year; [and] [p]ayment for travel time between work sites.” Proposed Am. Compl. (“PAC”) ¶ 2 (doc. 22-1).

         In May 2016, plaintiff joined the United Government Officers of America, International Union, Local 371 Union (“Union”). Id. at ¶ 3. Pursuant to the underlying collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), plaintiff was guaranteed the same employment benefits, except that his hourly wage increased to $22.80 as of December 1, 2017. Id.

         At all relevant times, plaintiff worked 32 hours per week, which the CBA classified as fulltime. Id. at ¶ 4; Redmond Decl. Ex. A, at 7 (doc. 27-1); Redmond Decl. Ex. B, at 8 (doc. 27-2); Redmond Decl. Ex. E, at 8 (doc. 27-5).[1] The CBA also contained mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures. Redmond Decl. Ex. A, at 20-21 (doc. 27-1); Redmond Decl. Ex. B, at 21-22 (doc. 27-2); Redmond Decl. Ex. E, at 22-23 (doc. 27-5).

         In May 2018, plaintiff's employment with defendant ended due to the nonrenewal of defendant's federal government contract. PAC ¶ 6 (doc. 22-1).

         In June 2018, plaintiff commenced this action in Multnomah County Circuit Court, alleging claims for breach of contract, negligence, and unpaid wages under Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 652.120, 652.140, and 652.150. See generally Notice of Removal Ex. 1 (doc. 1-1). In July 2018, defendant removed plaintiff's complaint to this Court.

         In August 2018, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. In December 2018, the Court granted defendant's motion but allowed plaintiff leave to seek amendment in light of plaintiff's representation “he has additional facts in his possession supportive of a claim for breach of contract under state law, ” as well as his expressed intention “to pursu[e] relief under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) for claims arising after May 2016.” McCloud v. Applied Integrated Techs., Inc., 2018 WL 6496793, *4 (D. Or. Oct. 15), adopted by 2018 WL 6497842 (D. Or. Dec. 7, 2018).

         On December 21, 2018, plaintiff filed the present motion to amend. On January 18, 2019, defendant opposed plaintiff's motion on futility grounds.

         STANDARDS

         Leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Courts apply Rule 15 with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In determining whether a motion to amend should be granted, courts generally consider four factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).

         These factors are not weighted equally: “futility of amendment alone can justify the denial of a motion [to amend].” Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009). A proposed amendment is futile if it would be immediately “subject to dismissal.” Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, the proposed complaint must allege “enough facts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.