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.

Anderson v. Aramark Facility Services LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 1, 2017

James H Anderson, Plaintiff,
v.
Aramark Facility Services LLC, et al ., Defendants.

          R. Steven Whalen Mag. Judge

         OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE ARAMARK DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [45], DENYING AS MOOT BEAUGARD AND BRUTON'S MOTION TO DISMISS [36], DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT [53] AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [61], VACATING THE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS FLINT ASSEMBLY [68], AND DISMISSING THIS CASE IN PART WITH AND IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          JUDITH E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is an employment case. Plaintiff James H. Anderson alleges that defendants improperly reprimanded and terminated him from his position. Pending are defendants Tony Beaugard and Debra M. Bruton's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 36), defendants Aramark Facility Services, LLC, Tony Beaugard, Jason A. Bowe, Debra M. Bruton, Diana Curtis, and Glenn Fackler's (“the Aramark defendants”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 45), plaintiff's fourth motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. 53), and plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. 61.)

         The Court determines that oral argument is not required pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Aramark defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, Beaugard and Bruton's separate motion to dismiss is denied as moot, plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint and compel discovery are denied, and this case is dismissed.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff initially filed suit in Genesee County Circuit Court on March 15, 2016. (Dkt. 1 at 4.) Defendants UAW Local 598, Tony Beaugard, and Debra M. Bruton timely removed the complaint on June 24, 2016. (Dkts. 1, 2.) The Aramark defendants filed a notice of consent to the removal on June 29, 2016. (Dkt. 4.) The Aramark defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 30, 2016. (Dkt. 8.) On July 11, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. (Dkt. 11.) Plaintiff then filed his first motion seeking leave to amend his complaint on July 26, 2016. (Dkt. 18.) On September 6, 2016, plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss Count XIII of his complaint, alleging breach of employment contract against UAW Local 598 and Aramark Facility Services. (Dkt. 23.) On September 21, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motions to remand and to amend the complaint, and granted the motion to dismiss Count XIII. (Dkt. 24.)

         On October 3, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss Count IX of his complaint, alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation against UAW Local 598. (Dkt. 25.) Plaintiff also filed a second motion to amend his complaint that same day, as well another motion to remand the case to state court. (Dkts. 26-28, 30.)

         On October 28, Beaugard and Bruton filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them. (Dkt. 36.) On November 7, 2016, Beaugard and Bruton withdrew part of their motion to dismiss claiming that they had not been served, as Aramark Facilities Services had already accepted service on their behalf. (Dkt. 40.) On November 10, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, denied his second motion to remand, and denied his motion to dismiss Count IX as moot, because the amended complaint already disposed of the count. (Dkt. 41.)

         On November 25, 2016, the Aramark defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint, including the claims against Beaugard and Bruton. (Dkt. 45.) On December 8, 2016, plaintiff filed his third motion for leave to amend his complaint (Dkts. 49-51), and on December 12, 2016, he filed a fourth motion for leave to amend with corrections to the complaint attached to the third motion. (Dkts. 53-54.)

         The Aramark defendants responded to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on December 22, 2016. (Dkt. 56.) Plaintiff responded to the Aramark defendants' motion to dismiss and replied to the response to the motion for leave to amend on January 6, 2017. (Dkt. 57.) Plaintiff filed a second response to the motion to dismiss on February 6, 2017. (Dkt. 59.) That response was untimely and a second response to a motion to dismiss is not permitted, therefore the Court will not consider it.

         On March 9, 2017, the Court denied the still-pending first motion to dismiss by the Aramark defendants and plaintiff's third motion to amend. (Dkt. 60.) On March 13, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. 61.) The Aramark defendants' motion to dismiss is fully briefed.

         Plaintiff has also failed to serve defendants Bobby Banks, Kevin Woodrum, Hydro Chem, and General Motors Flint Assembly. On April 6, 2017, the Court issued an order for plaintiff to show cause why the claims against these defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve. (Dkt. 63.) Plaintiff responded on April 17, 2017. On April 26, 2017, plaintiff requested an entry of default against General Motors Flint Assembly (Dkt. 67), and on April 28, 2017, the Clerk of Courts entered the requested default. (Dkt. 68.)

         Plaintiff was employed by Aramark Facility Services, LLC, at the General Motors Flint Assembly. He was also a member of a union during his employment. The operative complaint in this case alleges that on September 9, 2015, Woodrum and Beaugard called plaintiff to the break room of his workplace to reprimand him for a no-call/no-show (not showing up to work or notifying his superiors of his absence). (Dkt. 30 at 3.) Plaintiff informed Woodrum and Beaugard that he believed he was not scheduled to work that day, and that he was not asked if he needed a union representative during the conversation. (Id.) He also states that Beaugard told him that he could write the word “appeal” on the back of the disciplinary form and it would likely be overturned, which plaintiff did. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that his appeal of the matter was arbitrarily and discriminatorily ignored. (Id.)

         Plaintiff then alleges that Beaugard berated plaintiff, stating that he did not want to represent plaintiff, and accused plaintiff of lunging at him. (Dkt. 27 at 4.) Beaugard and plaintiff continued to argue, at which point security escorted plaintiff off of the premises. (Id.)

         On September 11, 2015, plaintiff discussed the situation with Banks, who informed him that he was suspended for thirty days. (Id.) On September 15, 2015, plaintiff was told to be at the General Motors Flint Assembly at 9 AM, where he met with Curtis and Bruton. (Id.) Plaintiff asked about the status of the investigation, at which point he states Curtis spoke to him in a “derogatory and demeaning” fashion, informing him that he was required to take anger management classes and chastising him for using his radio during the confrontation with Beaugard. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he then sent letters to Curtis and Hydro Chem that were ignored. (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges that he returned to work on October 16, 2015, and Woodrum drove with him in a cart to meet with Banks, Bruton, Beaugard, and “a first shift supervisor accompany[ied] with two big body guards.” (Id.) Bruton then told plaintiff that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss an allegation that plaintiff had threated to punch an unidentified witness. (Id.) Banks told plaintiff that he was on his last leg as well. (Id. at 5-6.)

         Plaintiff alleges that another employee lodged a complaint about his behavior on January 16, 2016. (Id. at 6.) On January 26, 2016, plaintiff had a dispute with another coworker over his boots. (Id.) On January 27, 2016, Woodrum and Bowe gave plaintiff a three-day disciplinary layoff pending investigation. (Id.) On January 28, 2016, plaintiff had a phone call with Fackler, who instructed plaintiff to write down his version of events that occurred on January 27, 2016, and to report to the Aramark Human Resources Office on February 1, 2016. (Id.) On February 1, 2016, plaintiff met with Fackler and Bruton, who at that point informed plaintiff that he was terminated from his job and that he would receive the findings of the investigation in the mail. (Id. at 7.)

         Plaintiff's original complaint includes numerous exhibits that are incorporated by reference into his later amended complaints. These include Employment Action/Disciplinary Notice Forms issued on March 12, 2015, June 6, 2015, July 22, 2015, August 24, 2015, September 10, 2015, September 11, 2015, September 15, 2015, January 11, 2016, January 28, 2016, and February 1, 2016, notifying plaintiff that he violated shop rules 2 and 6 under the operative collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and/or that he clocked into work late. (Dkt. 1 at 74-77, 86-89, 101-104, 117-118; see also Dkt. 38-4 (a copy of the CBA).)

         Plaintiff asserts twelve counts in his complaint: 1) interference with an employment relationship against Bruton; 2) negligence against Fackler; 3) negligence against Curtis; 4) negligence against Banks; 5) negligence against Bowe; 6) negligence against Beaugard; 7) negligence against Woodrum; 8) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Aramark Facility Services; 9) negligent supervision against Aramark Facility Services; 10) negligent supervision ...


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.