Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Katharine Bush, Melia Wilder (Nee Stopa), and Shelly Goorevich v. Ruth's Chris Steak House

October 12, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara J. Rothstein United States District Judge


This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, and Related Notice of New Parties and Claims [Docket No. 23; Filed May 6, 2011] (the "Motion"). Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion on April 20, 2011 [Docket No. 24] and Plaintiffs filed a reply on May 31, 2011 [Docket No. 25]. After completion of briefing, Defendants moved for and received leave to file supplemental briefing regarding the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) on the present Motion. Defendants' supplemental brief was filed on June 24, 2011 [Docket No. 27] and Plaintiffs' response was filed on July 8, 2011 [Docket No. 28]. The matter was reassigned to this court in September 2011. The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for resolution. As an initial matter, the Motion was filed within the pleading amendment deadline and is therefore timely. For the reasons set forth below,


I. Background

This matter pertains to Defendants' alleged discriminatory employment practices. Specifically, Plaintiffs are former female employees of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder contend that Defendants violated their rights pursuant to the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"). Complaint [#1] at 33-40. The operative Complaint purports to assert "pattern and practice" gender discrimination and retaliation claims. At the time of filing of the parties' Joint Meet and Confer Reports, they were in agreement that "this case . . . has not been brought as a class action." Report [#13] at 6; Revised Report [#16] at 9.

On March 14, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to dismiss any pattern and practice allegations contained in the operative Complaint on the basis that such allegations are only relevant in cases involving class claims [Docket No. 14]. In its April 1, 2011 opposition to that motion, Plaintiffs do not allege that they intend to pursue class claims [Docket No. 20]. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that pattern and practice allegations and evidence may be used to prove individual claims of discrimination. Opposition [#20] at 2, 8. That motion remains pending and is fully briefed.

On the date of the pleading amendment deadline, Plaintiffs filed the Motion at issue here. Specifically, Plaintiffs move to add individual DCHRA claims associated with a new Plaintiff and current employee of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, LaDawn Harris-Robinson, and, for the first time, to add class claims. Plaintiffs also provide notice of their intent to seek amendment at a later time to assert claims held by an individual named Amy Fisher and to assert additional, but presently unexhausted, Title VII claims held by Ms. Harris-Robinson.

As a preliminary matter, Defendants do not oppose amendment to add DCHRA claims on behalf of LaDawn Harris-Robinson. To the extent that Plaintiffs provide notice of their intention to seek amendment to add Ms. Fisher and her claims and any later-exhausted Title VII claims held by Ms. Harris-Robinson, those potential amendments are not at issue here, and the court passes no judgment as to whether such amendments may be granted.

In relation to the class claims, Defendants contend that amendment should not be permitted because Plaintiffs failed to raise class claims earlier despite ample opportunity to do so, Defendants would be unduly prejudiced, and the proposed amendment to add class claims would be futile. Opposition [#24] at 7-9. In regard to futility, Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs contend that the named Plaintiffs share common claims related to employment discrimination, many of the individual claims are distinct from each other and no one Plaintiff has the same claims as another. Id. at 10-12.

II. Analysis

The court should grant leave to amend "freely . . . when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Atchinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 426 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Leave to amend need not be given, however, when the moving party unduly delayed, failed to amend despite ample opportunity to do so, the nonmoving party would be unduly prejudiced, or amendment would be futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

A. Undue Delay and Prejudice

As a preliminary matter, although Defendants characterize the timing of Plaintiffs' request as a failure to cure, the court finds that this argument is more appropriately analyzed as undue delay. While recognizing that Plaintiffs could have made their intention to seek relief on the behalf of a class sooner, e.g., before unnecessary scheduling and dispositive motions briefing, the court does not find that Plaintiffs' conduct to date prevents them from pursuing amendment. See Caribbean Broad. Sys. Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless P.L.C., 148 F.3d 1080, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that even prolonged delay does not necessarily prohibit amendment in light of overwhelming desire to resolve case on its merits). Moreover, the court weighs this factor against whether Defendants are prejudiced by the timing of the amendment. Undue prejudice to Defendants is arguably the most important consideration in determining whether amendment should be permitted. See United States v. Hougham, 364 U.S. 310, 316 (1960) ("Rule 15 . . . was designed to facilitate the amendment of pleadings except where prejudice to the opposing party would result."). Undue prejudice is not implicated merely because the proposed amendment would "increase defendant's potential liability" or prompt the need for additional discovery. 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1487, at 723 (3d ed. 2010); M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. 133, 139-40 (D.D.C. 2002).

Given that the Motion was filed within the pleading amendment deadline and that the Complaint already contained pattern and practice allegations, the court finds that Defendants are not unduly prejudiced by the amendment. See 6 Wright et al., supra, at 726-27. Further, pursuant to this Order, the court will direct the parties to propose a new case ...

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.