Opinion ID: 773427
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Motion to Add Christopher Jimenez as a Class Representative

Text: 44 Plaintiffs also challenge the district court's denial of their motion to add Christopher Jimenez as a class representative. On February 6, 1996, Christopher Jimenez, who is Hispanic, and his fiance, Stacie Tiffany, who is white, were driving northbound on I-55 in Sangamon County, Illinois, in Tiffany's car. Tiffany was driving and admits that she was exceeding the speed limit. Jimenez alleges that ISP Trooper Robert Jennings, a Valkyrie officer, was parked at the side of the road looking at them with binoculars. Trooper Jennings admits that he has been able to detect the race of an occupant of a vehicle by using his binoculars in the past. Jennings saw but did not stop hundreds of other speeders that day. Jennings Dep. at 42. He explained that Tiffany's speeding and the fact that a male passenger was slumping in the front seat while wearing a baseball cap drew his attention to Tiffany's vehicle. 45 Jennings followed the vehicle and saw Tiffany fail to signal prior to changing lanes. He then stopped her, stating that he did so because she was speeding and failed to signal properly. He asked both Tiffany and Jimenez for their drivers' licenses and asked Tiffany questions about the nature of her relationship with Jimenez. According to Trooper Jennings, he is more likely to ask questions about the relationship between vehicle occupants if they are of different races. Although Jennings testified that he did not have a suspicion or a strong feeling that contraband was in the vehicle, he asked Tiffany for her permission to search her car. Plaintiffs say Jennings justified his request by explaining that in the past we had made drug seizures from mixed race couples. Jennings Dep. at 76. Tiffany consented. Jennings inspected and patted down the soft-surface bags in the trunk and patted down the area where the convertible's top is stored. He did not discover any contraband. Jimenez filed a written complaint with the ISP one week later, which the ISP deemed unfounded. Nonetheless, Jennings received counseling to make him aware that what he says can impact negatively upon the public, regardless of his intent. While Jimenez resides in Michigan, plaintiffs allege that he travels on Illinois highways several times per year, although his prior experience with the ISP has so intimidated him that he avoids I-55. 46 The plaintiffs identified Jimenez as part of the putative plaintiff class in July 1996, when they filed their fourth amended class action complaint. Almost three years later, on April 2, 1999, the plaintiffs moved to add Jimenez as a new named plaintiff pursuant to Rules 15(a) and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs' motion was untimely, to say the least: fact discovery had closed in August 1997, a final pre-trial order was scheduled to be filed on July 15, 1999, and the trial date was set for September 7, 1999. Magistrate Judge Bobrick denied the plaintiffs' motion. Although he concluded that the plaintiffs met the literal standard for joinder set forth in Rule 20(a), he determined that the court had discretion to deny a motion for joinder where it would cause delay, prejudice, or expense and found that adding a plaintiff would do all of those things. Chavez v. Ill. State Police, No. 94 CV 5307, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Ill. June 4, 1999). He noted that plaintiffs had known about Jimenez's claims for nearly three years but offered no explanation as to why they were unable to add Jimenez as a named plaintiff earlier. Plaintiffs objected to the magistrate's order, but on appeal, the district judge found that the order was not clearly erroneous, agreeing that joinder of Jimenez would be prejudicial and that the plaintiffs delayed in seeking to add him as a named plaintiff. The district judge echoed the magistrate judge's observation that while motions to amend a complaint are ordinarily granted, this is not an ordinary case. Chavez v. Ill. State Police, No. 94 CV 5307, 1999 WL 515483, at  (N.D. Ill. July 15, 1999). 47 Again, we review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion. No one disputes that joinder of Jimenez would be proper under the text of Rule 20. What is contested is whether the district court abused its discretion to deny leave to amend the complaint so that plaintiffs could join a party. 4 Where a responsive pleading has already been served, a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend need not be given if there is an apparent reason not to do so, such as 'undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.' Payne v. Churchich, 161 F.3d 1030, 1036 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1004, 119 S. Ct. 2339, 144 L. Ed. 2d 236 (1999) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962)). 48 Similarly, we also accord wide discretion to a district court's decision concerning the joinder of parties. See Intercon Research Assoc., Ltd. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 696 F.2d 53, 56 (7th Cir. 1982). We have recognized that this discretion allows a trial court to consider, in addition to the requirements of Rule 20, 'other relevant factors in a case in order to determine whether the permissive joinder of a party will comport with the principles of fundamental fairness.' Id. at 58 (quoting Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980)). If joinder would create prejudice, expense or delay the court may deny the motion. Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure sec. 1652 at 396 (2001). 49 The district court conducted a reasoned analysis of whether joinder was appropriate and determined that it would be fundamentally unfair to the defendants to add Jimenez as a named plaintiff. The court found that three factors weighed in favor of granting the motion: plaintiffs had a legitimate reason for requesting joinder in that they wished to substitute Jimenez for one of the formerly named Hispanic plaintiffs who had been dropped from the action; Jimenez was already party to the action and was thus closely related; and jurisdiction would not be affected. Several additional factors, however, weighed in favor of denying the motion. 50 The court determined that joinder would be heavily prejudicial to the defendants, as it would require, at a minimum, further deposition testimony. Although Jimenez had been deposed in 1997, it was by telephone, and was much less searching than the depositions of the named plaintiffs. While plaintiffs argued that they would allow additional depositions of Jimenez, the court dismissed this offer:Contrary to the plaintiffs' position throughout much of this case, discovery deadlines do not exist only to be extended. The court is entitled both to set deadlines and to expect that they will be honored, especially when the plaintiffs are before the court in 1999 shortly before trial seeking to extend a 1997 cut off based on events happening and known to them in 1996. 51 Chavez, 1999 WL 515483, at . The other factors weighing in favor of denying the motion were that Jimenez clearly had notice of the pending action yet plaintiffs did not attempt to join him earlier. The plaintiffs knew of Jimenez and his claims for nearly three years, and for over one year before the close of fact discovery in 1997 but waited until approximately two months prior to trial to seek to add him as a plaintiff. If this is not delay, nothing is. Id. at . The plaintiffs proffered explanation for this delay--that they were waiting for the resolution of a discovery related interlocutory appeal to this Court--was not presented to the magistrate judge and was properly dismissed by the district court. While plaintiffs assert that delay alone is an insufficient reason to deny their proposed amendment, there is a a sufficient basis for denial of leave to amend . . . when the delay has caused the opposing party undue prejudice. Textor v. Bd. of Regents of N. Ill. Univ., 711 F.2d 1387, 1391 (7th Cir. 1983). 52 We find that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add Jimenez as a named plaintiff. 53