Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Largesse v. H&M Int'l Transp., Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

January 6, 2015

DEAN JAY LARGESSE, SR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v.
H& M INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., CHARLES CONNORS and GEORGE WILLMOTT, Defendants

For Dean Jay Largesse, Sr., for himself and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Richard J. Rafferty, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Eden & Rafferty, Worcester, MA. David J. Officer, David J. Officer, P.C., Southborough, MA.

For H& M International Transportation, Inc., Charles Connors, George Willmott, Defendants: John D Doran, Jr, Robert B. O'Brien, Littler Mendelson, PC, Boston, MA.

Page 361

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.

Background

Plaintiff, Dean Jay Largesse, Sr. (" Largesse" ), filed suit in Massachusetts State Superior Court against H& M International Transportation, Inc. (" H& M" ), Charles Connors (" Connors" ) and George Willmott (" Willmott" ) alleging claims pursuant to Mass.Gen.L. ch. 149, § § 148 and 150 (failure to pay wages). Specifically, Largesse alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him his earned vacation pay pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (" CBA" ) between H& M and Teamsters Local Union 170. Connors and Willmott are being sued in their individual capacities.

Defendants removed the action to this Court on the grounds that Largesse's claims are preempted by federal law, specifically, Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (" LMRA" ), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Largesse's claims are preempted by the LMRA because such claims can only be resolved by reference to the CBA and because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies through the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedures.[1] For the reasons set forth in Defendants'

Page 362

memorandum in support of their motion, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is allowed.

After Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, Largess filed Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint (Docket No. 16). For the reasons set forth below, that motion is allowed.

Discussion

Standard Of Review

Under this Court's rules of procedure, more specifically, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), consent to file an amended pleading is to be " freely given when justice so requires." Id. " This liberal amendment policy applies unless the plaintiff exhibited bad faith, undue delay, the amendment would work undue prejudice on the opposing party, or be futile." Weinberg v. Grand Circle Travel, LLC, 891 F.Supp.2d 228, 236 (D.Mass. 2012). Largess has not unduly delayed his motion to amend (it was filed approximately 2 1/2 months after Defendants filed their motion to dismiss)[2] and there are no allegations of bad faith or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.