Perkins et al v. Federal Fruit & Produce Company, Inc. et al, No. 1:2011cv00542 - Document 223 (D. Colo. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendant's 209 Motion to Require Plaintiffs to Amend Complaing is granted in part and denied in part. By Judge James A. Parker on 12/2/13.(mnfsl, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO RICHARD PERKINS and RICHARD MILLER, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 11 CV 542 JAP/KBM FEDERAL FRUIT & PRODUCE COMPANY, INC. and MICHAEL MARTELLI, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND COMPLAINT At the conclusion of a jury trial that began on May 16, 2012 and extended through May 25, 2012, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on all of their employment discrimination and retaliation claims against Defendants. This included Plaintiff Richard Perkins (Perkins) retaliatory discharge claim against Defendant Michael Martelli (Martelli) on which the jury awarded Perkins $76,697 for compensatory damages and $150,000 punitive damages. The Court granted Defendant Martelli s post-trial motion for a new trial on Perkins retaliatory discharge claim against Martelli. See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO VACATE TRIAL AND JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR A NEW TRIAL (Doc. No. 194). During his trial testimony, Perkins recanted several significant allegations contained in his AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND (Doc. No. 7) (Amended Complaint) that were based on Perkins charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While recanting some allegations Perkins, for the first time during his trial testimony, added a startling new allegation. Most notably, Perkins testified that he prepared and filed a 1 grievance with his union about a verbal altercation between Perkins and Martelli in which Martelli called Perkins a nigger. Importantly, Union representative Jesse Medina testified that the grievance was sent to the FFP office. This grievance was crucial to Perkins claim that Martelli, having received the grievance from the union, agreed to fire Perkins in retaliation for Perkins submission of the grievance. On October 4, 2013, both Defendants filed a motion seeking an order requiring Plaintiff Perkins to file an amended complaint setting forth clear, specific allegations as to the factual basis of Perkins retaliation claim against Martelli. See DEFENDANTS MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 209) (Motion) at 6. Although the title of the Motion and its introductory paragraph state that both Defendants ask both Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, it is clear from the body of the Motion that the only requested amendment is clarification of Plaintiff Perkins retaliatory discharge claim against Defendant Martelli. Plaintiffs responded to the Motion by simply arguing that an amended complaint is unnecessary because Martelli already knows the precise nature of the underlying facts supporting Mr. Perkins retaliation claim against Defendant Martelli . . . . PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 215) at 3. The Court agrees with Defendant Martelli that Plaintiff Perkins should, before retrial, state specifically and in detail the evidentiary basis of his retaliatory discharge claim against Martelli because of surprise and confusion that resulted from Perkins testimony at trial. Martelli specifically asked the Court to order Perkins to clearly articulate the protected activity that Perkins will assert as the basis for his retaliatory discharge claim against Martelli. 2 Protected activity is the linchpin of a claim of retaliatory discharge. In Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987, 989 (10th Cir. 2011), the Tenth Circuit outlined the requirements for a claim by an employee that his employer discharged him in retaliation for an employee s legally protected activity. A claimant must prove that (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Id. To prove the third element, a claimant must prove that the person who took the adverse action knew of the protected activity. Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160, 1176 (10th Cir. 2007). Prior to the retrial, as to each claimed protected activity Perkins should summarize the evidence he will present, including the dates and places of, the persons involved with, and the form and substance of statements made during the protected activity, along with identifying relevant exhibits. It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to manage cases, and trial judges have broad latitude in deciding how best to do so. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing trial court s power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases); United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 988 (10th Cir. 1993) (stating, [d]istrict courts generally are afforded great discretion regarding trial procedure applications (including control of the docket and parties), and their decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. ). The Court believes that instead of requiring another amended complaint, the better approach is to have Perkins file, as part of a new proposed pretrial order that will govern the retrial, a detailed statement of the facts in support of his retaliatory discharge claim against Martelli. Hence, the Court will order Perkins to file by December 20, 2013 consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 such a new statement of facts supporting his retaliatory discharge claim. And, the Court will order Martelli, in turn, to file by January 6, 2014, his defense, with 3 supportin facts, to Perkins resta claim. These will b incorporat into a co ng P ated be ated omplete new w pretrial order at a late date. o er IT IS ORDER T RED that DE EFENDANT MOTION TO REQU TS N UIRE PLAIN NTIFFS TO AMEND COMPLAI D INT (Doc. No. 209) is gr N ranted in par and denied in part as s rt d stated above. Entered on December 2, 2013. E 2 SENIOR UN NITED STA ATES DISTR RICT JUDG GE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
