Ballinger v. Prime Healthcare Services - Reno, LLC

Opinion

5 * * *

6 REBECCA BALLINGER, Case No. 3:22-cv-00084-MMD-CLB

Plaintiff, v.

8 PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES – RENO, LLC, d/b/a ST. MARY’S 9 REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 10 Defendant. 11 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s1 motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 28 12 (“Motion”)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows amendment only by leave of 13 the court once responsive pleadings have been filed and in the absence of the adverse 14 party’s written consent. The Court has discretion to grant leave and should freely do so 15 “when justice so requires.” Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 Plaintiff seeks leave to restyle her state-law breach of contract and breach of 17 covenant claims as “straightforward” § 301 Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) 18 claims. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) Defendant opposes2 and argues that amendment is futile 19 because Plaintiff’s claims are actually “hybrid” § 301 LMRA claims that are barred by the 20 six-month statute of limitations. (ECF No. 29.) See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 21 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts may deny amendment if it will cause (1) undue 22 delay, (2) undue prejudice to the opposing party, (3) the request is made in bad faith, (4) 23 the party has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies, or (5) the amendment would be futile). 24 However, the Court cannot say that amendment would be futile. Plaintiff appears 25 to be asserting “straightforward” § 301 claims, as she is only suing her employer for 26

27 1Plaintiff Rebecca Ballinger sues her former employer, Prime Healthcare Services (“Saint Mary’s”) for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 28 1964, the American’s with Disabilities Act, and NRS §§ 613.330, 613.340. (ECF No. 1.) 1 || breach of the collective bargaining agreement and not making allegations of wrongdoing 2 || against her union. (ECF No. 1.) See De/Costello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 3 || 163 (1983) (in a “straightforward” § 301 action, the employer is sued for breach of the 4 || collective bargaining agreement); Conley v. Int’! Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 639, 810 5 || F.2d 913, 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (in a “hybrid” action, the employee is alleging “the employer 6 || unfairly treated” them and “the union violated the duty of fair representation”). Thus, 7 || Plaintiff's claims could be saved by amendment because the “straightforward” claims may 8 || be timely.* See Stebbins v. Geico Ins. Agency, Case No. 2:18-cv-00590-APG-GWF, 2019 9 || WL 281281, at *4 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2019) (“Amendment is futile only if no set of facts can 10 || be proven under the amendment that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim”) 11 || (citation omitted). Moreover, the case is still in the early stages of discovery, Plaintiff has 12 || not previously sought amendment, and the record does not suggest any bad faith by 13 || Plaintiff. See Leadsinger, 512 F.3d at 532; see also Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., 170 F.3d 14 || 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (the determination of amendment “should be performed with all 15 || inferences in favor of granting the motion’). 16 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 28) 17 || is granted. 18 It is further ordered that Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is denied 19 || as moot.* Defendant may file a renewed motion after the amended complaint is filed. 20 It is further ordered that Plaintiff must file the amended complaint within 15 days of 21 || the date of entry of this order. 22 DATED THIS 16!" Day of November 2022. —. 23 A> (LO - CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 || — 3Plaintiff argues that her amended claims are not barred because the statute of 26 || limitations for “straightforward” § 301 claims is six years—not six months. (ECF No. 28 at 2, 5.) 27 4The Court does not foreclose Defendant from reasserting any legal arguments 28 || raised in its pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) in response to Plaintiff's first amended complaint.