# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 32 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Lin da Ash ; Ab bi e Je wso m e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

And ers on Merc ha nd is ers , LLC; West AM , LLC; AnC on ne ct , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 5
Fil ed : Au gu st 21 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Lin da Ash an d Abb ie Je wso m e ap pe al th e di sm is sa l of th ei r co m pl ai nt al le gi ng

vi ol at io ns of th e Fai r Lab or St an da rd s Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 20 1 et se q. , an d th e

de ni al of th ei r po st -d is m is sa l m ot io n to va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r pu rs ua nt to 1

The Hon or ab l e D e a n W hi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.Fed eral Ru le s o f C i v i l Pro ced ur e 60 (b ) an d 59 (e) an d req ue st fo r le av e to fil e an

am en de d co m

pl ai nt

. H a v i n g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, we affi rm th e

di st ric t co ur t.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Ash an d J ews om e fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t An de rs on Mer ch an di se rs , W es t AM, and

AnC on ne ct un de r th e FLSA on Apr il 21

, 20 14

, on be ha lf of th em se lv es an d si m il arl y

si tu at ed pe rs on s

. The or ig in al co m pl ai nt al le ge d th at And ers on , W es t, an d

AnC on ne ct

, th e pl ai nt iff

s’ em pl oyer, ha d vi ol at ed th e FLSA by fai li ng to pa y req ui red

ov ert im e co m

pe ns at io n. The de fen da nt s fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s on May 23

, 20 14

,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n wit ho ut a he ari ng on Ju ly 2, 20 14

. Ju dg m en t

was en te red on be ha lf o f And ers on , W es t AM, an d An Co nn ect on Ju ly 9, 20 14

.

O n Ju ly 11

, Ash an d Je wso m e m ov ed to va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s o r d e r

pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 60 (b ) an d 59 (e) an d req ue st ed le av e to

fil e th ei r Fi rs t Am en de d Co m pl ai nt

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Ash an d Je wso m e’s

m ot io n t o v acat e an d re qu es t t o fil e an am en de d co m pl ai nt on Sep te m

be r 11 , 2 01 4.

Ash an d Je wso m e ti m el y ap pe al ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th ei r co m pl ai nt an d

de ni al of t he ir m ot io n t o v acat e an d re qu es t fo r le av e to am en d.

II . Disc us si on

A. Mo ti on to Dis m is s

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Ash an d Je wso m e’s co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e

a cl ai m fo r two reas on s: fai lu re to al le ge th at And ers on , W es t, an d AnC on ne ct were

th ei r em pl oyer fo r p u r p o s e s of th e FLSA, an d fai lu re to al le ge a su bs ta nt iv e FLSA

cau se of act io n. Ash an d Je wso m e as se rt on ap pe al th at th ei r co m pl ai nt was su ffi ci en t

to st at e a cl ai m fo r rel ie f, an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de te rm in in g ot he rwis e.

-2

-“ W e rev ie w th e di s mi s sa l of a co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m de no vo , affi rm in g di sm is sa l if th e co m pl ai nt fai ls to st at e a cl a i m u p on whi ch rel ie f can be

gr an te d.” Hor ras v. Am

. Cap it al St rat eg ie s, Ltd

., 72 9 F.3 d 79 8, 80 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )
(q uo ta ti on , a lt erat io n, an d in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d) . F or a pl ead in g to st at e a cl ai m

fo r rel ie f it m

us t co nt ai n a sh or t an d pl ai n st at em en t of th e cl a im sh owi ng th at th e pl ead er is en ti tl ed to rel ie f. Id

. (ci ti ng Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 8( a)(2 )). The co m pl ai nt m us t

co nt ai n fact s s u f

f i c i e n t t o st at e a cl ai m th at is pl au si bl e on it s face

. Bel l Atl . C or p.

v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7)

. “A c la im ha s faci al pl au si bi li ty whe n th e pl ai nt iff pl ead s fact ua l co nt en t th at al lo ws th e co ur t to dr aw th e reas on ab le in fere nc e

th at th e de fen da nt is li ab le fo r th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d.” Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S.

66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9)

. “ A pl ead in g th at of fers ‘lab el s an d co nc lu si on s’ or ‘a fo r mu l a i c

reci ta ti on of th e el em en ts of a cau se of act io n wil l no t do .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5)

.

In th ei r co m

pl ai nt

, Ash an d Je wso m e m ad e on ly on e al le ga ti on wit h reg ard to

th e de fen da nt s’ st at us as th ei r em pl oyer: “ Dur in g al l rel ev an t ti m es , [An de rs on , W es t,

an d AnC on ne ct ] were pa rt of an in te gr at ed en te rp ris e an d, as su ch

, w e r e p l a i nt iff s’

em pl oyer. Dur in g al l rel ev an t ti m es , an d up on in fo rm at io n an d be li ef, a l l o f th es e

de fen da nt s sh ared in te rrel at ed op erat io ns , cen tra l iz ed co nt ro l of la bo r rel at io ns ,

co m m on m an ag em en t an d co m m on own ers hi p an d/ or fin an ci al co nt ro l.” A s h an d

Je wso m e pr ov id ed no ad di ti on al fact s to su pp or t th e s e as se rti on s. The ir on ly

al le ga ti on is si m

pl y a res ta te m en t of th e le ga l te st us ed to de te rm in e whe th er cert ai n

en ti ti es co ns ti tu te a joi nt em pl oyer fo r th e pu rp os e of ci vi l rig ht s li ti ga ti on

. See Bak er

v. St ua rt Bro ad cas ti ng Co

., 56 0 F.2 d 38 9, 39 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 77 ). Howev er, “ th e te st of

em pl oym en t un de r th e FLSA is on e of ‘econ om ic real it y .’ ” Ton y an d Su sa n Alam o

Fo un d. v. Sec’y of Lab or , 47 1 U.S. 29 0, 30 1 (19 85 ) (q uo ti ng Gol db erg v. W hi ta ke r

Hou se Co -o p., In c., 36 6 U.S. 28

, 33 (1 96 1) ). Ash an d Je wso m e’s co m pl ai nt do es no t

in cl ud e an y fact s de sc rib in g th e “ eco no m ic real it y ” of th ei r em pl oym en t, su ch as th ei r

al le ge d em

pl oyers’ rig ht to co nt r o l th e na tu re an d qu al it y of th ei r wor k, th e

-3

-em

pl oyers’ rig ht to hi re or fir e, or th e so ur ce of co m pe ns at io n fo r th ei r wor k. See

Gol db erg , 36 6 U.S. at 32 –3 3. Effect iv el y, t h e o n l y a ll eg at io n as to who Ash an d

Je w s o me’ s em

pl oyer was is th e co nc lu so ry st at em en t th at And ers on , W es t, an d

AnC on ne ct were “ pa rt o f an in te gr at ed en te rp ris e.”

Thi s co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on is in su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf y th e pl ead in g req ui rem en ts

of Ru le 12 (b )(6 ). Ash an d Jews om e fai le d to se t fort h any fact s to su pp or t th e le ga l

co nc lu si on th at And ers on , W es t, an d AnC on ne ct were th ei r em pl oyer , in st ead

pr ov id in g on ly “ la be ls an d co nc lu si on s” an d “ a fo rm ul ai c reci ta ti on of th e el em en ts ”

of th ei r cl ai m

. Hor ras , 72 9 F

. 3 d a t 80 1 (q uo ti ng Iq ba l, 56 6 U.S. at 67 8)

. Ash an d

Je wso m e co ul d ha ve al le ge d— an d in th ei r fir st am en de d co m pl ai nt

, di d al le ge —s uc h

fact s as th e na m e on th ei r bu si ne ss card s, th e id en ti ty of th ei r su pe rv is or s, th e so ur ce

of th ei r wor k sc he du le s, an d th e in fo rm at io n th ey were gi ve n whe n th ey were hi red

. It is th is type of fact ua l al le ga ti on th at co ul d “ al lo w[] th e co ur t to dr aw th e reas on ab le

in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt is li ab le fo r th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Iq ba l,

56 6 U.S. at 67 8)

. Howev er, w it ho ut th is type of fact ua l all eg at io n, th e co m pl ai nt is

in su ffi ci en t fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a ne ces sa ry ele m en t o f th e cl ai m

.

It is im po rta nt to no te th at Ash an d J ews om e were no t req ui red to de te rm in e

co nc lu si ve ly whi c h of th e th ree de fen da nt co m pa ni es was th ei r em

pl oyer at th e pl ead in gs st ag e o r de sc rib e in de ta il th e em pl oyer’s cor

po rat e st ru ct ur e, whi ch th ey

co nt en d was no t wit hi n th ei r ab il it y to kn ow so earl y in th e li ti ga ti on

. The pl ead in g

st an da rd un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) co nt em pl at es th at pl a i n t iff

s wil l of te n be un ab le to

pr ov e de fin it iv el y th e el em en ts of th e cl ai m be fo re di sc ov ery, pa rti cu la rly in cas es

whe re th e ne ces sa ry in fo rm at io n is wit hi n th e co nt ro l of th e de fen da nt s. The pl ead in g

st an da rd th eref

or e req ui res on ly th at th e pl ai nt iff al le ge fact s su ffi ci en t to st at e a pl au si bl e cl ai m

. Here, ho wev er, Ash an d Je wso m e di d no t al le ge an y fact s at al l th at

wou ld al lo w an in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt s were th ei r em pl oyer. W it ho ut an y fact s

to su pp or t th ei r al le ga ti on , th e co m pl a i n t co nt ai ne d on ly th e reci ta ti on of a le ga l

co nc lu si on , an d a m ere le ga l co nc lu si on is no t en ou gh to al le ge an em pl oyee-

-4

-em

pl oyer rel at io ns hi p as req ui red fo r an FLSA cl ai m

. Bec au se Ash an d Je wso m e di d

no t adeq ua te ly alle ge th at And ers on , W es t, an d AnCo nn ect were th ei r em pl oyer, as

req ui red to st at e a cl ai m un de r th e FLSA, th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in di sm is si ng

th ei r co m pl ai nt for fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

.

The di st ric t co ur t al so co nc lu de d t h a t A s h an d Je wso m e fai le d to al le ge

su ffi ci en t fact s to su pp or t a su bs ta nt iv e cau se of act io n fo r ov ert im e vi ol at io ns un de r

th e FLSA. Ash an d Je wso m e as se rt th at in reac hi ng th at co nc lu si on , th e di st ric t co ur t

erro n e ou sl y ap pl ie d a he ig ht en ed pl ead in g st an da rd

. The pr op er pl ead in g st an da rd

fo r FLSA cl ai m s is a m at te r o f fir st im pr es si on in th is ci rcu it fo ll owi ng Iq ba l an d

Twom bl y , an d th os e c i r c u i t s to ha ve co ns id ered th e qu es ti on ha ve arri ve d at

so m ewh at va ria bl e co nc lu si on s. Co m pa re Lun dy v. Cat ho li c Heal th Sy s. of Lon g

Is la nd In c., 71 1 F.3 d 10 6, 11 4 (2 d Ci r. 20 13 ) (req ui rin g a pl ai nt iff to al le ge 40 ho ur s

of wor k in a gi ve n work week as well as so m e un co m pe ns at ed ti m e in ex ces s of th at

40 ho ur s) ; an d Dav is v. Abi ng to n Mem

. Hos p., 76 5 F.3 d 23 6, 24 2– 43 (3 d Ci r. 20 14 )
(ad op ti ng Lun dy te st ); an d Lan de rs v. Qua li ty Co m m un ic at io ns , In c., 77 1 F.3 d 63 8,

64 4– 45 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (s am e); wit h Pru el l v. Cari ta s Ch ris ti

, 67 8 F.3 d 10

, 13 –1 6 (1 st

Ci r. 20 12 ) (req ui rin g ex am pl es of un pa id ti m e or a de sc rip ti on of t h e n a t ur e of th e

wor k pe rfo rm ed ). Howev er, ha vi ng co nc lu de d th at Ash an d J e wso m e’s co m pl ai nt

was in su ffi ci en t be cau se it di d no t ad eq ua te ly al l e ge th at th e de fen da nt co m pa ni es

were th ei r em

pl oyer, we ne ed no t r e a c h t h e qu es ti on of whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t

co rrec tl y ap pl ie d t he pro pe r pl ead in g s ta nd ard for th e su bs ta nt iv e FLSA cl ai m

.

B. Mo ti on to Vacat e an d R eq ue st for Leav e to Fil e Am en de d C om pl ai nt

Ash an d Je wso m e arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th ei r m ot io n to va cat e

an d req ue st fo r le av e to fil e an am en de d com pl ai nt was an ab us e of di sc ret io n. The

st at ed ba si s fo r th e m ot io n to va cat e is th e fil in g of an am en de d co m pl ai nt

, th eref

or e

we m us t o nl y de ci de whet he r th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in de nyin g l eav e to am en d.

-5

-We “revi ew th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of [a pl ai nt iff ’s] m ot io n fo r le av e to

am en d fo r an ab us e o f d i sc ret io n.” Hor ras , 72 9 F.3 d at 80 4 (q uo ti ng Mo rri so n

Ent ers ., LLC v. Drav o Co rp ., 63 8 F.3 d 59 4, 60 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). “ Alt ho ug h a di st ric t

co ur t ‘m ay no t ig no re th e [Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e] 15 (a)( 2) co ns id erat io ns

t ha t fav or affo rd in g pa rti es an op po rtu ni ty to te st th ei r cl ai m s on th e m eri ts ,’ i t h a s

‘con si de rab le di sc ret io n to de ny a po st jud gm en t m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d be cau se

su ch m ot io ns are di sf

av or ed .’ ” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es ex

rel

. Ro op v. Hy

po gu ard USA, In c., 55 9 F.3 d 81 8, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). “ Une xc us ed

de la y is su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy th e co ur t’s de ni al

. . . if th e pa rty is se ek in g to am en d th e pl ead in gs aft er th e di st ric t co ur t ha s di sm is se d th e cl ai m s it se ek s to am en d,

pa rti cu la rly whe n th e pl ai nt iff was pu t on no ti ce of th e ne ed to ch an ge th e pl ead in gs

be fo re th e co m

pl ai nt was di sm is se d, bu t fai le d to do so .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Mo se s.co m Sec., In c

. v. Co m

pr eh en si ve So ftwa re Sy s., In c., 40 6 F.3 d 10 52

, 10 65 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 )).

Ash an d Je wso m e arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th ei r req ue st fo r le av e

to am en d was an ab us e of di sc ret io n bec au se th at de ni al pre ve nt ed th ei r cl ai m fro m

be in g te st ed on it s m eri ts

. Res ol ut io n of cl ai m s on th ei r m eri ts i s f a v o r e d u nd er 2

Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro ced ur e 1 5( a)(2 ), an d “ de ci si on s on th e m eri ts [sh ou ld no t]

be av oi de d o n t he ba si s o f . . . m ere t ech ni cal it ie s.” Fo m an v. Dav is , 37 1 U.S. 1 78

, 18 1 (1 96 2)

. H o w ev er, th at co ns id erat io n is no t th e so le fact or whe n de te rm in in g

whe th er a pl ai nt iff sh ou ld be gr an te d le av e to am en d a co m pl ai nt po st -jud gm en t. A

di st ric t co ur t m ay ap pr op ria te ly de ny le av e to am en d “ whe re th ere are co m pe ll in g

Ash an d Je wso m e al so arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab u s e d i t s di sc ret io n in 2

fai li ng to gr an t th em le av e to am en d to m eet wh a t th ey co ns id er to be a ne wlyhe ig ht en ed pl ead in g st an da rd fo r FLSA ov ert im e cl ai m s. Howev er, be cau se Ash an d

Je wso m e di d no t su ffi ci en tl y pl ead th e em pl oyer el em en t of th ei r FLSA cl ai m , we do

no t reach th e qu es ti on of wha t su bs ta nt iv e pl ead in g st an da rd ap pl ie s, or add res s th e

pu rp or te dl y he ig ht en ed st an da rd ap pl ie d by th e di st ric t co ur t. Thi s co m po ne nt of Ash

an d J ews om e’s arg um en t i s t he refo re u na va il in g.

-6

-reas on s su ch as un du e de la y , ba d fai th

, or di la to r y m ot iv e, rep eat ed fai lu re to cu re

de fic ie nc ie s by am en dm en ts pr ev io us ly al lo wed

, un du e pr ejud ic e to th e no n- m ov in g

pa rty, or fu ti li ty of th e am en dme n t

, ” ev en whe n do in g so wil l ne ces sa ril y pr ev en t

res ol ut io n o n t he m eri ts . Horra s, 7 29 F.3d at 8 04 (qu ot in g M os es .co m , 40 6 F .3d at

10 65 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Ash

an d Je wso me h a d i n ex cu sa bl y de la y ed in pr op erl y req ue st in g le av e to am en d an d

de ni ed th e req ue st

.

The re can be li tt le do ub t th at it wou ld ha ve be en wit hi n th e d i s t ric t co ur t’s

di sc ret io n to gr an t Ash an d Je wso m e’s req ue st fo r l e a v e t o am en d, jus t as it was

wit hi n th e co ur t’s di sc ret io n to de ny th at req ue st

. Howev er, si m pl y be cau se Ash an d

Je wso m e co ul d ha ve be ne fit ed fro m a fav or ab le ex erci se of th e co ur t’s d i s cret io n

do es no t m ean th at th ey were en ti tl ed to th at ex erci se of di sc ret io n. Ash an d Je wso m e

are rig ht whe n th ey sa y th at de fen di ng a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n (p res um ab ly i ns te ad

of req ue st in g le av e to am en d) is no t a “ pe r se ” gr ou nd fo r di sm is si ng a cas e, an d th at

th is co ur t’s pr eced en t “ do es no t st an d fo r th e de ni al of al l po st -jud gm en t m ot io ns fo r

le av e to am en d.” Bu t Ru le 15 do es no t pr ov id e fo r a po st -jud gm en t am en dm en t as

a m at te r of rig ht

. W hi le pl ai nt iff s “ rem ai n fr ee wh ere d is m is sa l o rd ers do no t g ran t

le av e to am en d to se ek va cat io n of th e jud gm en t un de r Ru le s 59 an d 60 [b ]

. . . di st ric t

co ur ts in th is ci rcu it [al so ] ha ve co ns id erab le d i sc ret io n to de ny” su ch req ue st s

. Uni te d St at es v. Mas k of Ka-Nefe r-Nefe r, 75 2 F.3 d 7 3 7

, 74 2– 74 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )
(fi rs t al te rat io n i n o rig in al ).

On ap pe al

, Ash an d Je wso m e ap pe ar to co nf la te th ei r rig ht to re q u e st po st

jud gm en t le av e to am en d wit h th ei r rig ht to re cei ve le av e to am en d. Fu nd am en ta ll y ,

“ th e gr an t or de ni al of an op po rtu ni ty to am en d is wit hi n th e di sc ret io n of th e Dis tri ct

Co ur t.” Fo m an , 37 1 U.S. at 18 1. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t ex erci se d it s di sc ret io n an d

co nc lu de d th at Ash an d Je wso m e sh ou ld no t be gr an te d le av e to am en d, an d Ash an d

Je wso m e ha ve fai le d to es ta bl i s h t h a t t he co ur t’s de ci si on co ns ti tu te d an ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Ash an d Je wso m e es s e n t i a l l y a rg ue th at be cau se it is pr efer ab le th at

-7

-cl ai m s br ou gh t in fed eral co ur t be te st ed on th ei r m eri ts

, th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of

po st -jud gm en t le av e to am en d—w hic h di d pr ev en t th ei r cl ai m fro m pr oc eed in g on th e

m e r i t s

— w as al m os t by de fin it io n an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Bu t in m ak in g th is

arg um en t, Ash an d Je wso m e fai l to ad dr es s th e fact ua l ba si s of th e di st ric t co ur t ’s

de ci si on

. Ash an d Je wso m e di d no t se ek le av e to a men d th ei r co m pl ai nt un ti l ni ne

da y s aft er th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n to di sm is s an d two da y s aft er jud gm en t

was en te red

. The de fen da nt s’ m ot io n to d i s mi s s, fil ed 47 da y s be fo re th e di st ric t

co ur t di sm is se d th e cas e, pu t Ash an d Je wso m e on no ti ce of th e po ss ib le de fic ie nc ie s

in th ei r or ig in al co m

pl ai nt

. The y ha d th e op po rtu ni ty to req ue st le av e to am en d at an y

ti m e be fo re th e di st ric t co u r t ru le d on th e m ot io n to di sm is s. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P.

15 (a)( 2)

. In st ead

, th ey ch os e to res t on th e i r o r i g i na l co m pl ai nt

, an d di d no t se ek

3

le av e to am en d un ti l th at co m pl ai nt was fo un d to be de fic ie nt

. Ass ert in g si m pl y th at

th ei r cl ai m sh ou ld be te st ed on th e m eri ts

, Ash an d Je wso m e of fer no th in g to ex pl ai n why th e i r l i ti ga ti on de ci si on s di d no t am ou nt to un du e de la y , or why th e res ul ti ng

de la y was ot he rwis e ex cu sa bl e. W e reco gn iz e th e pr efer en ce fo r cl ai m s to be te st ed

on th e m eri ts

, bu t un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d in th is cas e, we can no t sa y th at

th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in fin di ng th at Ash an d Je wso m e in ex cu sa bl y

de la y ed in req ue st in g l eav e to am en d a nd de nyin g t he ir r eq ue st

.

The co ur t is un pe rs ua de d by Ash an d Je wso m e’s arg um en t th at it is so m eh ow 3

“ se lf- de feat in g” to fav or se ek in g le av e to co rrec t de fic ie nc ie s in a co m pl a i n t w h i le
si m ul ta ne ou sl y d e f

e n d in g ag ai ns t a m ot io n to di sm is s th at co m pl ai nt

. Ash an d

Je wso m e ci te no au th or it y fo r th e p ro po si ti on th at a pl ai nt iff sh ou ld be pe rm it te d to
de fen d a g a i n s t a moti on to di sm is s an d th en am en d th ei r co m pl ai nt as a m at te r of

co ur se if th e m ot io n is res ol ve d ag ai ns t th em

. It is well -es ta bl is he d th at pr e-ju dg m en t

req u e s t s fo r le av e to am en d are pr efer red , s ee Hor ras , 7 29 F.3 d at 80 4, an d th at th e de ci si on whe th er to req ue st le av e to am en d or st an d on th e co m pl ai nt is an or di na ry

t a c t i cal de ci si on th at is co m m on ly req ui red of li ti ga nt s. Su ch de ci si on s are no t al way s eas y to m ak e, bu t we se e no reas on to co nc lu de th at th is rel at iv el y co m m on ci rcu m st an ce i s s om eh ow fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r to pl ai nt iff

s.

-8

-II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t cou rt’s di sm is sa l of Ash an d

Je wso m e’s co m

pl ai nt

, an d affi rm th e de ni al of Ash an d Je wso m e’s m ot io n to va cat e

an d re qu es t t o fi le an am en de d c om pl ai nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-