Hulkenberg et al v. Anabaptist Healthshare et al, No. 3:2019cv00031 - Document 53 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/17/19. (jcj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERTs OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT hj'ROANOKE,VA FILED b %CT 17 2(),8 IN THE U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTM CT OF VIRGW IA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION JU BY: ,DUDLEY CLERK Da U W ILLIA M RICHA RD HU LKEN BERG, SR.,eta1., Plaintiffs CivilAction N o.3:19CV00031 M EM OR AN DUM OPG ION ANABAPTIST HEALTH SHA RE,etal., By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants PlaintiffsW illiam Richard Hulkenberg,Sr.,Ronald Jones,Larry Bowen,W illiam Richard Hulkenberg,Jr.,Jeremy Hulkenberg,and Andrew Hall(theSçFormerEmployees'')filed aonecount Virginia-law claim of w rongful tennination against Anabaptist Healthshare, Kingdom HealthshareM inistriesLLC,UnityHealthshareLLC,OneshareHealth,LLC,Alex Cardona,and TylerHochstetler. The case is currently beforethecoul. ton D efendants'm otion to dism issunder Rule12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,ECFNo.35,andtheFormerEmployees' m otion to am end theircom plaint. Them otion to amend attachesa proposed am ended complaint adding Eldon Hochstetler,TylerHochstetler'sfather,asa defendant. ECF N o.49-3.D efendants opposethism otion arguing thatamendmentw ould be futile and thatadding Eldon Hochstetleras a defendantwould be abad faith amendment.ln addition,the Form erEm ployeesm oved forleave to file areply in supportoftheirm otion to am end,w hich attached a proposed reply. ECF N o.51. The courtconsidered the Form erEm ployees'proposed reply w hen deciding D efendants'm otion. Hulkenberg et al v. Anabaptist Healthshare et al Doc. 53 Forthe reasonssetforth below,the courtw illgrantin partDefendants'm otion to dism iss,grant the Form erEm ployees'motion forleave to amend theircom plaint,and deny asm ootthe m otion forleave to 5le a reply. Dockets.Justia.com ER Backeround Thefollow ing factsaretaken from thecom plaintandtheexhibitsattached thereto.Before delving into the factsofthis case,how ever,the courtsum m arizesthe statutory contextin w hich these claim sdeveloped. The allegationsrequire som e understanding ofa health care costsharing arrangem ent thatCongress used to allow certain religious organizations to avoid the so-called individualmandateoftheAffordableCareAct.Seeaenerallv26U.S.C.jj5000A(a),(d)(1),& (d)(2)(B). UnderVirginialaw,ahealthcaresharingministry(ICHCSM'')isç(ahealthcarecostsharing arrangementam ong individualsofthesam ereligion based on theirsincerely held religiousbeliefs, whicharrangementisadministeredbya''j501(c)(3)non-profitorganization,andcomplieswith otherrequirements.Va.CodeAnn.j38.2-6300.TheserequirementsincludethatanHCSM : 3.Provides forthe financialormedicalneeds of a memberthrouglipayments directlyfrom onemembertoanother.Therequirementsofthissubdivksiong)maj be satisfied by a trustestablished solely forthe benefitofm em bers,w hich trtlstls auditedannuallybyanindependentauditingfirm;(and) 5.Provides written monthly statem ents to allm em bers that list the total dollar amount of qualified needs subm itted to the organization by m em bers for their contribution. ld. By following these requirements,H CSM Sare notïsconsidered to be engaging in the business ofinsurance''forpurposesofVirginia'sinsurancestatutes.Va.CodeAnn.j38.2-6301. Tlte Parties The Form er Em ployees are allform erat-willlem ployees ofdefendantK ingdom H ea1th CareM inistriesLLC (stdlçingdom''),now knownasOneshareHealth,LLC Crneshare'')orUnity Hea1thCareM inistries,LLC ($$Unity''). Compl,!!I4-9,12.Bowen wasfiredatsomepointin 1 None ofthe FonnerEmployees allegethatthey were employed underacontractwith asetterm . Thecourt thereforetreatstheiremploymentasbeingat-will.SeeMillerv.SEVAMP.Inc.,362S. E.2d915,916-17(Va.1927). late2018.LcL!!55-57.TheotherFormerEmployeeswereplacedon paidadministrativeleave onNovember3,2018andwereterminatedonJanuary7,2019.J-tls!!61-62. DefendantsA nabaptistHealthshareand Unity werepredecessorentitiesto Kingdom .A lex Cardona servesasOneshare'sCEO,and TylerH ochstetlerisaboard m em ber.z Unity,K ingdom , andOneshareareorwerea11HCSM S.Ld=.!!10-14. The FormerEmployees'A llegations A non-party,AlieraHealthcare,1nc((W 1iera''),factorsheavily intheFormerEmployees' allegations. Aliera is a for-protit com pany founded by Tim othy M oses,which entered into a partnership w ith Unity in 2016-2017. Underthe A lierar nity agreem ent,(tunity had no control overitsfinancesfueledbyMembershipdues.''Id.!25.Rather,G'M osescontrolledal1thefinances forUnity through Aliera,''and purportedly violated 1RS regulationsby rendering the partnership afor-proiitenterprise. Id.!! 26-29. TheFormerEmployeesallegethatMosesisaconvicted felon who eventually em bezzled funds from the Aliera/unity partnership and engaged in self- dealing.J. ka!!16,26-27. In February 2018,a publicly traded third-party,apparently a potentialbusiness partner called HealthM arkets,Inc.,refused to do business w ith A liera/unity w ithout conducting some form of diligence. HealthM arkets had concerns aboutthe partnership's financialsolvency and commissionstructures.Id.!!34-35.lnresponse,Cardonaretainedaconsultingfirm,M illiman, Inc.,to provide an auditofA lierar nity.Id. ln April2018,Cardona and Hochstetlerdiscovered M oses'embezzlementinthecourseoftheMillimanaudit.ld.!!39-40.ByJune2018,Moses ççadm itted''tohaving (tpilfered''fundsfrom theAlierar nity partnership.Cardona and H ochstetler rem oved M oses' access to certain accounts, but they did not report his actions to any legal 2 Thecourtexercisesdiversityjurisdiction.TheFormerEmployeesareTexas,Missouri,andOhiocitizens. DefendantsareVirginiaandGeorgiacitizens.Compl.!1. authorities.1d.!!41-42.TheFormerEmployeesalsoallegethatCardonaandHochstetleracted in concertwith M osesto som e extent,and thereby profited from M oses'behavior. ln addition, Cardona allegedly created sham sales positions for his w ife and niece, extracted large sales com m issions, and both Cardona and Hochstetler took in purportedly illegalddper mem ber/per month''fees.1d.!!28-32. On August9,2018- afterCardona and Hochstetlerhad discovered M oses'actions- unity hired W illiam H ulkenberg,Sr.and RonaldJonesasChiefM inistry OfficerandChiefSalesOfficer, respectively.Id.!!43-44.TheFormerEmployeesallegethatHulkenberg,Sr.andJonesowed tiduciary duties to K ingdom and its HCSM m em bers in theirrespective roles as ChiefM inistry OftkerandChiefSalesOï cer.Id.!!zl-5.TheremainingFormerEmployeeswereinvolvedin business developm ent,productdesign,interaction with third party adm inistrators,working with on-linewebcastsandproductdemonstrations,aswellasadministration.J-(.!!6-9. Atsom e point,Hulkenberg,Sr.becam e suspiciousof(sfoulplay''on thepartofM osesand Cardona.Ld.. a!!45-46.BetweenOctober25andNovember3,2018,Hulkenberg,Sr.alertedthe otherForm erEm ployees,had discussionsw ith Hochstetlerand Cardona to no avail,and m etwith a Kingdom board member regarding his concerns. Ld=.!! 45-50. On November3,2018, Hulkenberg,Sr.andJoneswereplacedonadministrativeleave.Id.!61. 0n November21,2018,M illim an issued an initialreport.TheFormerEm ployeescontend that this report failed to account for various sales com m ission expenditures, and w as thus, inaccurate.Id.!I !51-55.OnNovember27-28,Hulkenberg,Sr.andBoweninstructedMilliman to rerun the reportaccounting for additionaldata:t'Bowen told L' M illimanqto use 30% for com missions,stating that Cardona told him to always use 30% for comm issions even though com missionscan go ashigh as37% .''.1Z ! 55.Cardonagrew angrywhen hereceivedthesecond M illimanreport,whichhedidnotorder,andfiredBowen.1d.!57. On January 7,2019,allofthe Form erEm ployees exceptBow en,who had already been terminated,receivedaletterfrom Hochstetler,advisingthattheyhadbeenfired(dbasedongtheir) demandsandactionstakenwhileemployedatKingdom.'''Id.!62. Insum,theFormerEmployeesallegethattheyattemptedtocarry outtheirfiduciary duties and raised the alarm aboutM oses'and Aliera'sbusinesspractioes,butDefendantsfked them in orderto'lsilence''them.1d.!67.William Hulkenberg,Sr.,LarryBowen,andRonaldJonesstate they werew rongfully term inated becauseçEthey knew too m uch.''1d.at3.ltisunclearthatW illiam H ulkenberg,Jr.,Jerem y Hulkenberg,and Andrew H allhaveany rolein the allegations,asidefrom beingpurportedlyterminatedttaspunishment''fortheotherFormerEmployees'conduct.1d.!!79. A l1the while,the Form er Em ployees allege various crimes purportedly com m itted by the Defendants,id.!!78-86,andthattheirt'terminationswerebasedon(their)refusaltohide,engage in,conceal,oracquiesceto''thatsameSsillegaland/orcriminalconduct''id.!77. Defendantsdeny theFonnerEm ployees'accountoftheevents.D efendantsallegethat,far from Defendants covering up M oses'conduct,Defendants are pursuing M oses and Aliera in a law suit in Georgia state court. See aenerallv A liera H ealthcare,lnc.v.A nabaptistH ealthshare. No.2018CV308981(FultonCnty.Super.Ct.).Indeed,Defendantshaveobtainedaninterlocutory injunctionandtheappointmentofareceiveragainstAliera,whichwasenteredonApril25,2019before the Form erEmployeesfiled the instantcom plaint. Defendants attach the G eorgia court's orderto theirm otion. ECF N o.35-1.3 3 Thecoul' tmaytakejudicialnoticeoftheorder.Witthohnv.Fed.Ins.Co.,164F.App'x395,397(4thCir. 2006)(allowingjudicialnoticeofauthenticcourtrecords). Standard ofR eview ((A motiontodismisspursuanttoRule12(b)(6)teststhesuftkiencyoftheclaimspledin acomplaint.''ACA Fin.Guar.Corp.v.CitvofBuenaVista.Vircinias917F.3d206,211(4thCir. 2019). To survivea motion to dismiss,(ça complaintmustcontain sufficientfacmalmatter, accepted astrue,to tstatea claim to reliefthatisplausibleon itsface.'''Ashcroh v.Iubal.556 U.S. 662,678(2009)(citingBellAtlanticCorp.v.Twombly.550U.S.544,557(2007)).A claim is plausible ifthe factspled (Eallow the courtto draw the reasonable inference thatthe defendantis liableforthem isconductalleged.'' Id. Thisis6$a context-specifictask thatrequiresthe review ing courttodraw onitsjudicialexperienceandcommonsense.''ld.at679.Factualallegationsthat donotallow acoul' tto infermorethan(dthemerepossibilityofmisconduc/'areinsufficient.1d. W hilethispleadingstandard doesnotrequiredetailed factualallegations,lsitdem andsm ore than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawl lly-harm ed-me accusation.'' 1d. at 678. St abels, conclusions, recitation of a claim 's elem ents,and naked assertions devoid of further facm al enhancem entwillnotsuffice to m eettheRule8 pleading standard.''CityofBuenaV ista.V irginia, 9l7 F.3d at211. The courtm ustacceptthe factualallegations in the com plaintastrue,butneed notacceptacomplaint'slegalconclusions.Igbal,556U,S.at678.$$(W!hi1eRule8departedfrom the hypertechnical code-pleading requirem ent of a prior era, it did not (unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing m ore than conclusions.''' Citv of Buena V ista. Virginia,917F.3dat211(quotinglgbal,556U.S.at678. -679). Defendantswouldhavethecoul' texaminetheFormerEmployees'claimsunderRule9(b)'s heightenedpleadingstandard.ThecourtneednotdecidewhetherRule9(b)appliesbecauseitcan decide the m otion to dism issunderthe Rule 8 standard. Discussion 1. Defendants'M otion to Dism iss Ssvirginiaadherestotheem ploym entat-willdoctrine,w hichallow s...theem ployer...to term inate the em ploym entrelationship withoutthe need to articulate a reason.'' Francisv.N at'l Accreditinc Comm'n ofCareerArts& Scis.-lnc.,796 S.E.2d 188,190 (Va.2017)(quotation marksandalterationsomitted).TheVirginiaSupremeCourthasrecognizedanarrow exception to theat-w illdoctrinewherean em ployer'sterm ination ofan em ployee violatespublicpolicy.See cenerallvBowmanv.StateBankofKeysville.331S.E.2d797(Va.1985).Thisonly appliesin çEthree lim ited circum stances,''referred to here asthe (çBow m an exceptions'': 1) ttWhen anemployerviolatedapolicyenablingtheexerciseofanemployee's statutorily created right''; 2) dsWhenthepublicpolicyviolatedbytheemployerwasexplicitly expressedin the statute and the employee was clearly a m em ber of that class of persons directly entitled to theprötection enunciated by thepublicpolicy'';and 3) (çWhen the di scharge wasbased on the employee'srefusalto engage in a '' 'rim inalactc Francis.796 S.E.2dat190-91(citationsandquotationmarksomitted).TheSupremeCourtof V irginiatthasconsistently characterized such exceptionsas Qnarrow .''' 1d. a. TheFirstBowm an Exception The Form erEm ployees have notstated a claim underthe firstBowm an exception. (T o analyze such a claim , it is im portantto discern whatright w as conferred on an em ployee by statute....''1d.;Storevv.PatientFirstCoro..207F.Supp.2d431,452(E.D.Va.2002)(noclaim becausestatuteprovidedrightto Componwealthto inspectrecords,nottheplaintiffs);Dunnv. Millirons,176F.Supp.3d591,599(W .D.Va.2016)(Conrad,J.),aff'd,675F.App'x 314(4th Cir.2017)(ç(Thestatuteconfersrightsandpowersontheboardofsupervisorsasawhole,and does notspecifically authorize individualboard m em bers to inquire into the officialconductof county officers.''). TheFormerEmployeespointto no rightgranted tothem by any Virginia stamtes- v irginia'sHCSM statute orotherw ise- w hich they were fired forexercising. The Form erEm ployees requestthatthe courtexpand the Bow m an exceptionsto fittheir claim s,eitherunderV irginia'sH CSM statute orundercertain ofthe FormerEm ployees'purported tiduciaryduties.Thecourtwilln0tdos0.(((A)stateclaim whichhasn0tbeenrecognizedbythat jurisdiction'sown courtsconstitutesasettled question oflaw,whichwillnotbe disturbed by gfederalcourtsjabsentthemostcompellingofcircumstances.''Tritlev.CrownAinvavs.Inc.,928 F.2d 81,84(4thCir.1990)(refusingtoexpandW estVirginiawrongfuldischargelaw).Federal courtsdçgenerallydonothavetheauthoritytosurmiseorsuggest(the)expansion''ofsuchlaws. Id.;Sewellv.Macado's.lnc.,No.7:04-CV-268,2004WL 2237074,at*4(W .D.Va.Oct.4,2004) (Conrad,J.)(dismissingBowmanclaim anddecliningtoexpandexceptions). TheV irginia Suprem eCourthasnotruled thata Bowm an claim arisesfrom being fired for exercising afiduciary duty.Based on the Virginia Suprem e Court'srepeated adm onitionsthatthe Bowm an exceptions are çtnarrow ,''the courtholds that Virginia law w ould not supportsuch a claim . Reasoning in other decisions guides this court. For exam ple,the D istrict of Colum bia CourtofAppeals held thatthe Virginia Suprem e Courtwould be unlikely to rule thatBowm an would allow wrongfulterm ination suitsbased on a corporate director's exercise ofhis fiduciary duty,based on the narrownessofthe doctrine. A tkinsv.lndus.Telecom municationsA ss'n,lnc., 660 A.2d 885,888-91 (D.C.1995). Milton v.11T Research Institute also adds persuasive authority. 138F.3d519(4thCir.1998).lnthatcase,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuitruled thatM aryland law,w hich has a fram ew ork sim ilarto V irginia's,w ould not supportsuch a claim broughtby a cop orate officer who w as allegedly fired for exercising his fiduciaryduties.Id.at523(llMarylandlaw doesprovideawrongfuldischargecauseofactionfor 8 em ployeeswho are term inated because they perform theirstatutorily prescribed duty. H ow ever, this exception to the norm of at-w illemploym enthas been construed narrow ly by the M aryland courts....'')(quotationmarksandcitationomitted);seealsoLawrenceChrvslerPlvmouthCorn. v.Brooks,465S.E.2d806,809(Va.1996)(rejectingargumenttoSsexpand''Bowmanexceptions torelyonpurported'Ccommonlaw duties''ofacardealership). In any case,while Bowen and H ulkenberg,Sr.allegedly had fiduciary duties,the Form er Em ployeeshave notpled non-conclusory factsthatwould allow the courtto inferthatthoseduties extendedto ensuring thetax andregulatory com pliance ofan HCSM .See M ilton.138F.3d at523 (ttgFlor(plaintiftltorecover,itisnotenoughthatsomeoneatEhiscompany)wasresponsiblefor correcting its tax filings or that the corporation may have been liable for tax fraud. This responsibilitywasnever(hisq,nordidhefaceanypotentialliabilityforfailingtodischargeit,so hisclairnfails.''). TheFormerEm ployees'proposedam endedcom plaintfailsto curethesedefectsoridentify alternative statutes providing grounds for relief under this exception. The court, therefore, dismisseswithprejudiceanyclaimstheFormerEmployeesmightbringunderthetirstBowman exception. Balas v.Huntinaton Inaalls lndus..lnc..711 F.3d 401,409-10 (4th Cir.2013) (affirming denialofleaveto amend wherestatutesin proposed amendmentwould notprovide groundsforBowmanclaim). b. The Second Bowm an Exception TheForm erEm ployeeshave notstated a claim underthesecond Bowm an exception. Such aclaim requiresanemployeetoshow apublicpolicythatisCsexpressedin(a)statute''andthatçtthe em ployee w as clearly a m em ber of that class of persons directly entitled to the protection enunciated by the public policy,''which the employer violated in firing her. Rowan v.Tractor SupplvCo.,559 S.E.2d709,711(Va.2002). Even ifthecourtweretofindthattheVirginia H CSM statute expresses a public policy,the statute does notm ention HCSM employees as a protected class. In fact,the statute does notm ention HCSM em ployees atall. See aenerallv Va. Code Ann.j 38.2-6300. Accordingly,there is no argumentthatthe Former Employees are fçdirectly entitled''to any protection underthatstatute. Rowan,559 S.E.2d at709. The Form er Em ployees'proposed am ended complaintfailsto curethese defectsoridentify alternativestatutes providinggroundsforreliefunderthisexception.Thecourt,therefore,dismisseswithprejudice any claim sthe Form erEmployeesm ightbring undefthe second Bowm an exception. Balas.711 F.3d at409-10. c. The Third Bowm an Exception The Form erEmployeeshavenotstated a claim underthe third Bowm an exception either. A claim under the third Bowm an exception requires allegations that an employer çdasked, or directed''an em ployee to engage in a crim inalact,w hich could lead to theem ployee'sprosecution underV irginia law . Storey,207 F.Supp.2d at453;Ingleson v.Burlington M ed.SuppliesaInc., 141F.Supp.3d579,588-89(E.D.Va.2015)(employer(dsought''toengageplaintiffinadultery throughphysicalactionsandwords);Twiaav.TripleCanopvslnc.,No.10-CV-122,2010W L 2245511,at*3 (E.D.Va.June2,2010)(criminalconductmustbeçtdemanded''by employer); Robinsonv.SalvationArmv,791S.E.2d577,580(Va.2016)(affirmingdismissalwhereS'nothing in the record showledjthatgthe employerqasked gthe employeeqto participate in any kind of...activity thatwould constitute acriminalact''). There are noallegationsthatany ofthe D efendants asked or demanded that any one ofthe Form erEm ployees engage in any crim inal behavior. At m ost,the Form er Employees'allegations (dreflect m erely that''M oses and/or the Defendants committed illegalacts and fired the Former Employees (çin response to gtheirj willingnesstodisclose(those)illegalacts.''Storev,207F.Supp.2dat453.TheVirginiaSupreme Courthas tdrefuseldl to recognize''this type of Ssgeneralized,common-law Swhistleblower' retaliatory discharge claim ...as an exception to Virginia'sem ploym ent-at-willdoctrine. Drav v.New Mkt.PoultrvProd..Inc..518S.E.2d312,313(Va.1999). Even ifthe com plaintalleged such a dem and by the Defendants,the Form erEm ployees m ustalso allege facts m aking itplausible thatthey Stcould have been prosecuted underVirginia criminallaw had(they)engagedintheconductencouragedbytheemployer.''SeeTwiag,2010 W L 2245511,at*3.(W sSevery crim eto bepunished in V irginia mustbe com m itted in Virginia,' Plaintiftlsjmustshow somecriminalconductoccurred,''orcaused çEan Simmediateimpact'''in Virginia.Id.at*4(quotingFarewellv.Commonwealth,189S.E.321,323(Va.1937)andM oreno v.Baskerville,452S.E.2d653,654(Va.1995)).lnTwicz,theplaintiffallegedthathisemployer fired him forrefusing to forge docum entsand obtain m oney underfalse pretenses in violation of Virginia law while w orking in Iraq. 1d.at *4. The coul't dism issed these claim s because the plaintiffdid notallege facts showing he could actually be prosecuted underV irginia law ,which has lim its on extraterritorial prosecution. 1d. The Form er Em ployees are citizens of Texas, M issouri,and Ohio,and thecom plaintdoesnotallegethatany pal. toftheirem ploym enttookplace inorhadanimmediateimpactinVirginia.M oreno,452S.E.2dat654(drugtransactioninArizona wouldnotallow prosecution forsalesdowntheStchainofdistribution''inVirginia).Thus,asin Twigz,theFormerEmployershavenotalleged factsshowingthatthey couldbesubjecttothe jurisdictionofVirginia'scriminallaws. The Form erEmployees'proposed am ended complaintalso failsto statea claim underthe third Bowm an exception. The proposed am endm ents do include additionalallegations thatthe FonnerEm ployeeswereasked orm ay havebeen asked to com m itcertain acts. See.e.2.,ECF N o. 49-3!!130,132,135,& 137.However,theallegationsremainconclusoryanddonotallow the courtto plausibly inferthattheD efendantsare liable forthe m isconductalleged. Igbal.556 U .S. at678. The proposed am endm entsalso stilllack factsshow ing thatthe FormerEm ployees could havebeensubjecttocriminalprosecutionunderVirginialaw. II. TheForm er Em plovees'M otion to Am end Thecoult however,willpermittheFormerEmployeestoamendtheircomplaintandplead atheory underthe third Bowm an exception,applying the liberalstandard ofFederalRule ofCivil Procedure15(a)(2).A motiontoamendshouldonlybedeniedwhenG'theamendmentwouldbe prejudicialtotheopposingparty,therehasbeenbadfaithonthepal' tofthemovingparty,orthe amendmentwouldbefutile.''Johnsonv.OroweatFoodsCo..785F.2d503,509(4thCir.1986). A m otion to am end (sshould only be denied on the ground offutility when theproposed amendm entis clearly insufficientor frivolous on its face.'' 1d.at510. In Orow eat Foods,the Foul'th Circuitrçversed the lowercourt's denialofa m otion to am end,ruling thatthe (dcom plex'' legal argum ents and Sdfactual inquiry'' in the plaintiff's proposed am endments preventedthecourtfrom findingthatamendmentwouldbefutile.Ldxsat510-11.Atoralargument, the Form erEmployees assured the courtthatthey had further factsto plead- beyond theirfirst proposed am ended com plaint- thatw ould state a claim underthe third Bowm an exception. The court also recognizes that the Form er Em ployees' allegations involve a com plex regulatory environm entand purportedly com plex financialarrangem ents. Asa result,thecourtdoesnotfind thatfurtheram endm entw ould be clearly frivolousorfutile underthattheory. Further,Defendantshavenotoffered enough factsforthecourtto concludethattheForm er Employees'proposed am endm entswould be m ade in bad faith. The courtexpects,how ever,that the FormerEmployees willallege suftkientfacts to justify adding Eldon Hochstetler as a defendant,ifthey chooseto do so. Conclusion Forthe reasonsstated,the courtgrantstheDefendants'motion in part.Thecourtdism isses theFormerEmployees'claimsunderthefirstandsecondBowmanexceptionswithprejudice,and dismisseswithoutprejudiceany claim they may haveunderthethirdBowmanexception. ' Fhe courtthtrefore grants the FormerEm ployees'm otion to am end their com plaintto pursue claim s underthe third Bowm an exception. Finally,the courtdenies as m ootthe Form er Em ployees' m otion forleaveto filea reply in supportoftheirm otion to am end.Partiesneed notseek leave to tileareply.W .D.Va.Civ.R.11(c)(1). A ny am ended com plaintand responsive pleading or m otion to dism iss shallbe tiled in accordance with theorderaccom panying thisopinion.The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthis m em orandum opinion and the accom panying orderto allcounselofrecord. DATED :This ''' IV day ofoctober,2019 SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge
]]>
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.
