F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 12 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RANDY BIGGS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6251
(D.C. No. CIV-97-1439-T)
LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF (W.D. Okla.)
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
and/or Logan County, Oklahoma,
a political subdivision of the State
of Oklahoma,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , HENRY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
defendant Board of County Commissioners on his claims for unpaid overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216, and his claim
for gender discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.
Plaintiff also appeals the district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint to
assert a claim for retaliation under the FLSA.
In a well-reasoned order, the district court concluded that plaintiff, who
was a deputy sheriff and undersheriff of Logan County during the relevant period,
was not entitled to compensation for overtime under the FLSA because the
undisputed evidence showed he fell within the FLSA’s exception for personal
staff of an elected official (the sheriff). See 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(2)(C)(i), (ii)(II);
see also Nichols v. Hurley , 921 F.2d 1101, 1110-14 (10th Cir. 1990) (concluding
plaintiff deputy sheriffs and undersheriffs of two Oklahoma counties fell within
personal staff exception to FLSA under evidence presented). Likewise, the court
concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Title VII because of a
similar personal staff exception in that statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
Therefore, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant on both
claims.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same standard as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See
-2-
Frank v. U.S. West, Inc. , 3 F.3d 1357, 1361 (10th Cir. 1993). In applying this
standard, “[w]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant.
However, it is not enough that the nonmovant’s evidence be merely colorable or
anything short of significantly probative; the nonmovant must come forward with
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (citations and quotations
omitted). Based upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the
pertinent law, we conclude the district court correctly granted summary judgment
to defendant on plaintiff’s claims for uncompensated overtime under the FLSA
and for gender discrimination under Title VII based on those statutes’ respective
personal staff exceptions.
In his complaint, plaintiff also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights. In response to defendant’s
motion for summary judgment, however, plaintiff said he believed “his retaliation
claim is more appropriately brought under [Section 215(a) of the FLSA] than as a
Section 1983 action. Therefore, if necessary, the Plaintiff seeks to amend his
complaint to assert his claim for retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).”
Appellant’s App. at 188-89. The district court interpreted plaintiff’s statements
as a concession that his “complaint about failure to receive overtime
compensation does not qualify as an expression of public concern protected by the
First Amendment,” and as a withdrawal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. Id. at 325.
-3-
The court further construed plaintiff’s statements as a request to amend the
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which the court denied. The court
concluded that plaintiff’s request to amend was untimely, that plaintiff had given
no reason for his undue delay, and, in any event, that the amendment would be
futile.
We review the district court’s denial of leave to amend for an abuse of
discretion. See Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho , 31 F.3d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir.
1994). “We have often found untimeliness alone a sufficient reason to deny leave
to amend, especially when the party filing the motion has no adequate explanation
for the delay.” Id. (quotation omitted). Likewise, denial is appropriate “[w]here
the party seeking amendment knows or should have known of the facts upon
which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original
complaint.” Id. (quotation omitted).
The proposed amendment was not based on facts that were unavailable at
the time the complaint was filed sixteen months earlier. Rather, the amendment
proposed a theory that plaintiff did not choose to advance until after defendant
showed plaintiff’s original theory was fatally flawed.
A busy district court need not allow itself to be imposed upon by the
presentation of theories seriatim. . . . Much of the value of summary
judgment procedure . . . would be dissipated if a party were free to
rely on one theory in an attempt to defeat a motion for summary
judgment and then, should that theory prove unsound, come back
along thereafter and fight on the basis of some other theory.
-4-
Id. (quotation omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons set forth by the district
court in its Order of May 26, 1999.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-5-