Court: District Court, D. Maine; September 14, 2018; Federal District Court
The court, presided over by Judge David S. Doty, has denied the motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by StepStone Hospitality, Inc. in response to Jorge Osorio's employment dispute. Osorio was terminated from The Northland Inn on June 6, 2012, after working there as a buffet table attendant since 1999. His termination followed a workplace injury in 2009, leading him to file a contested worker's compensation claim. Osorio claims that following the claim, he faced unfair treatment, harassment by supervisors, and denial of medical accommodations. After settling his worker's compensation claim in April 2012, he alleges he was pressured to resign to receive his paycheck and medical benefits, although this issue was briefly resolved with his attorney's intervention.
Osorio initiated this lawsuit in April 2018 against Minneapolis Hotel Acquisition Group, LLC (MHAG), asserting unlawful discharge in retaliation for his worker's compensation claim. MHAG indicated that StepStone Hospitality, Inc., the prior owner, retained liability for actions before its acquisition. After being provided StepStone's contact details by MHAG, Osorio served StepStone with the amended complaint on June 8, 2018. StepStone subsequently moved to dismiss the claim as untimely. The court outlined the standard for dismissing a claim for failure to state a claim, emphasizing that the complaint must present enough factual matter to make a plausible claim for relief, rejecting mere labels or speculative allegations while allowing for consideration of public records and materials closely linked to the pleadings.
The statute of limitations applicable to this action is the six-year period outlined in Minn. Stat. 541.05, subdiv. 1(2), which begins on the date of the adverse employment action. In this case, the period started on June 6, 2012, with Osorio's termination, and expired on June 6, 2018. Osorio's claim against MHAG is timely as he served the original complaint on April 8, 2018. However, he did not serve the amended complaint to StepStone until June 8, 2018, making StepStone argue that the claim against it is time-barred.
Osorio contends that the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint, thus making it timely. An amendment is considered to relate back when it changes the party against whom a claim is asserted, provided it arises from the same conduct as the original claim and the new party had notice of the action within the ninety-day period of Rule 4(m), ensuring no prejudice to their defense. Osorio claims he mistakenly omitted StepStone from the original complaint due to confusion about liability and asserts that StepStone was aware it would have been included absent the mistake.
StepStone argues that Osorio has not sufficiently demonstrated a "mistake" as defined by Rule 15(c), but it does not dispute its awareness of the potential claim against it within Rule 4(m)'s service period or claim any prejudice in defending. Despite concerns regarding Osorio's delay in including StepStone as a defendant, the court finds that the precedent in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A. supports Osorio's position. In Krupski, the court ruled that a plaintiff who mistakenly identified the wrong party, even while aware of multiple entities, made a "mistake" rather than a deliberate choice not to sue the correct party.
Osorio's initial confusion regarding the liability between MHAG and StepStone mirrors the circumstances in Krupski. He believed MHAG was a successor to StepStone, indicating a misunderstanding rather than a conscious decision to exclude StepStone. The record shows that StepStone was aware of Osorio's mistake within the specified period, satisfying the requirements of Rule 15(c)(1)(C) for relation back. The court emphasizes that any delay by a plaintiff in naming the correct party does not negate relation back if the other conditions of Rule 15(c) are met.
Osorio's late service of the amended complaint does not prevent relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), allowing the claim against StepStone to proceed as timely. The court denied StepStone's motion to dismiss, despite Osorio's initial erroneous allegation of termination on March 19, 2012. Osorio later clarified that he was actually terminated on June 6, 2012, and no determination on whether he resigned or was terminated is necessary for this motion. Osorio's counsel, retained in December 2012, did not file suit until April 2018, without explanation for the delay. A recent affidavit from Osorio’s counsel, expressing doubt about previous statements regarding StepStone's liabilities, was deemed improper and disregarded by the court. StepStone's argument for applying Rule 15.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Procedure instead of Rule 15(c) was rejected, as both rules present no significant conflict in this case. The court found that, unlike the precedent in Sandoval, Osorio served the amended complaint within the permissible time frame.
