Much of this opinion is devoted to the humdrum details of default judgments. The District Court, however, also addressed the impact of an amended complaint on a prior default judgment. In this case, the District Court entered a default judgment against the corporate defendant, Green Energy Resources, Inc., after an extended period passed without its securing counsel. Slip op. at 2-4. The Freilich’s then sought to amend their complaint to add an alter ego theory against the individual defendants. Id. at 4, 8-9. The District Court pointed out that “courts routinely set aside entries of defaults when plaintiffs file amended complaints.” Id. at 14 (citing Rossignol v. Tillman, No. 10-3044, 2011 WL 1193017, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 25, 2011)). When the Freilich’s flinched at the prospect of losing their default judgment, the District Court denied the motion to amend without prejudice. Id. at 15.
Judge Rodriguez Denies Post-Trial Motions to Wrap Up Employment Case Within 14 Months of Filing
Blanton sued his Pizza Hut franchisee/employer for sexual and racial harassment. Slip op. at 1-2. The case was tried to a jury in mid-December 2013, 13 months after it was filed. Id. at 1-2. The jury found that Blanton had been harassed, but not retaliated against; it also found that Pizza Hut had proved its Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense, which requires an employer’s showing that (a) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment, (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities or to otherwise failed to avoid harm. Id. at 4 (quoting Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807 (1998)). The District Court upheld the jury’s verdict because Pizza Hut had an anti-harassment policy, it promptly dismissed Blanton’s supervisor upon learning of her inappropriate conduct, and Blanton had failed to report the harassment for several months. Slip op. at 4-8. The District Court also rejected Blanton’s complaint that the affirmative defense should not have been allowed into the case after the scheduling order deadline; the defense was formally added to the case in response to Blanton’s own late joinder of additional defendants, and he was not prejudiced because the defense had been explored during discovery. Id. at 8-9.
Judge Ezra Stays Discovery Pending a Ruling on Camber’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
Conquest v. Camber Corporation, No. SA:13-CV-01108-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2014)(Ezra, J.)
Conquest moved for expedited discovery at the same time as he filed this putative collective Fair Labor Standards Act case. Camber Corporation moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and contemporaneously filed a motion to stay discovery under Rule 26(c). The District Court found that there would be “meager harm” in staying discovery at the outset of the case whereas discovery could prove altogether unnecessary if the motion were granted; therefore, the District Court entered a stay that “automatically lifted once the Court rules on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #14).” Slip op. at 2-4.