Tucker v. Chobani, LLC et al, No. 1:2017cv00345 - Document 20 (D. Idaho 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to amend (docket no. 16 ) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff is directed to file with the Clerk a First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO VIRGINIA G. TUCKER, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:17-CV-345-BLW v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER CHOBANI, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company, CHOBANI IDAHO, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, Defendants. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it a motion to amend complaint filed by plaintiff Tucker. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant the motion. ANALYSIS Plaintiff Tucker filed her complaint on August 21, 2017, claiming that she was wrongfully terminated from her job as a Maintenance Technician with defendant Chobani. The parties stipulated that the deadline for any amendments to pleadings would be May 18, 2018, and the Court entered a Case Management Order adopting that deadline. See Order (Dkt. No. 12). About a week before that deadline expired, Tucker filed a motion to amend her complaint to add two new claims for retaliatory discharge. In the amended allegations, Tucker alleges that she was fired after complaining to Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1 Chobani’s Human Resources Department, and to the Idaho Human Rights Commission. She alleges that her retaliatory firing violated Title VII and the Idaho Human Rights Act. Rule 15(a)(2) states that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” The policy underlying the liberal allowance of amendment is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir.1987). “Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.” Id. Chobani argues that Tucker had all the information necessary to plead retaliation when she filed her initial complaint, and that she unduly delayed filing her motion. But Tucker’s motion was timely under the deadline stipulated to by Chobani, and there is no evidence that Chobani was prejudiced because Tucker did not file her motion earlier. Chobani also argues that the amendment is futile because Chobani fired Tucker before she complained to its Human Rights Department and the Idaho Human Rights Commission, and thus could not have committed a retaliatory firing. But that is a contested issue that cannot be resolved at this stage of the litigation – Tucker alleges that she was fired after her complaints. For all of these reasons, the Court will grant the motion to amend. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to amend (docket no. 16) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff is directed to file with the Clerk a First Amended Complaint. Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2 DATED: July 2, 2018 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief U.S. District Court Judge Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3
]]>
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.
