United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 21, 2005
_______________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-31083 Clerk
_______________________
JOHNNY L. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CROWN ENTERPRISES, INC.; DIXIE HARVESTING COMPANY AND CORA-TEXAS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
_______________________
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge:
Johnny Johnson appeals from the district court’s
determination that his racial discrimination claim was time-
barred. Because we conclude that his claim related back to the
filing of his original petition, we reverse this part of the
judgment. Johnson also contends that the district court
improperly found that a parent company and its subsidiary, the
company for which Johnson worked, were not a single enterprise.
On this point, we agree with the district court and so affirm
that portion of its judgment.
Johnson hauled sugar cane as a truck driver for Appellee
Dixie Harvesting Company. This work was seasonal, lasting the
1
five months of the sugar cane harvest each year. Johnson hauled
sugar during the 1998–1999 harvest season and again during the
1999–2000 season. Although Johnson’s original pleadings claimed
that he was an employee, the parties now agree that he was, in
fact, an independent contractor.
During the second season, Johnson, who is African-American,
alleges that he overheard Kevin Medine, the Dixie employee in
charge of hiring, telling three white men, “Man, I’m sick of
these damn n******’ trucks breaking down. I’m gonna stop hiring
these n****** and hire some of my buddies with them good trucks
where this damn cane can get hauled to the mill.”
Following this, Johnson was not rehired for the 2000-2001
season, nor for any season after that. Johnson alleges that
sixteen other African-American truckers’ contracts also were not
renewed for the 2000-2001 season, although the other truckers’
claims are not part of this lawsuit. Johnson also alleges that
Dixie hired thirteen new truckers for the 2000-2001 season and
that all of these truckers were white.
Johnson filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and,
after receiving a right-to-sue letter, sued Dixie and two
companies that Johnson alleged were interrelated with Dixie——
Crown Enterprises, Inc., and Cora-Texas Manufacturing Company.
Johnson originally sued under Title VII, contending that he was a
“contract employee” of Dixie. After some delay, Dixie filed its
answer, denying liability in part because Johnson was an
2
independent contractor, not an employee, and thus excluded from
Title VII’s protection. Johnson moved to amend his complaint to
add a claim for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
which does not require the plaintiff to be an employee. The
magistrate judge granted this motion. Although they had opposed
the motion to amend, Dixie and the other defendants never filed
an objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling. Dixie, Crown, and
Cora-Texas then moved for summary judgment, arguing among other
things that the limitations period had run on Johnson’s § 1981
claims and that Dixie and Crown did not form a single enterprise.
The district court granted Dixie’s motion for summary
judgment. The court found that Johnson’s § 1981 claims were
barred by limitations, that he could not establish a Title VII
claim because he was not an employee,1 and that Crown and Cora-
Texas were not part of a single enterprise with Dixie. This
appeal followed.
Standard of Review
We review the district court’s summary judgment decision de
novo. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 378
F.3d 482, 486 (5th Cir. 2004). In reviewing this decision, we
use the same standards as the district court. Pegram v.
Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 278 (5th Cir. 2004). In other
1
Johnson now concedes that he cannot proceed on his Title
VII claim and admits that he was not, in fact, an employee.
3
words, we ask whether the movant has shown the nonexistence of
any genuine issues of material fact and that he is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
Limitations Period
Section 1981 does not contain a limitations period. For
claims under this section, courts have traditionally applied the
relevant state personal injury limitations period. Goodman v.
Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 661–62 (1987). In this case,
that would be Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period for tort
actions. See Taylor v. Bunge Corp., 775 F.2d 617, 618 (5th Cir.
1985). Although Johnson’s original complaint was filed within
this period, limitations had run by the time that Johnson made a
§ 1981 claim in his amended complaint.
In his reply brief, however, Johnson argues that the one-
year period does not apply, based on an intervening Supreme Court
case, Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 124 S.
Ct. 1836 (2004). Jones provides that claims under the 1991
revisions to § 1981 have a four-year limitations period. Jones,
124 S. Ct at 1845-46. The 1991 revisions allow a plaintiff to
sue for conduct, such as harassment or termination, that occurs
after contract formation.
We believe, however, that Johnson is not suing the Appellees
for conduct occurring after contract formation, but rather for
failure to enter into a new contract with him. His brief clearly
4
indicates that his claim is not based on termination, even
stating that “[t]here was no termination involved in the present
case.” Thus, Jones does not alter the limitations period for
Johnson’s § 1981 claim.
Relation Back
Given the one-year limitations period, Johnson contends that
the district court erred in concluding that the § 1981 claim in
his amended complaint did not relate back to the date of his
original complaint, which was filed within the one-year period.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) provides that, in
certain circumstances, amendments to pleadings relate back to the
date of the original pleading. One of those circumstances is
when “the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose
out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or
attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” FED. R. CIV.
P. 15(c)(2). Thus, the focus is “not . . . the caption given a
particular cause of action, but . . . the underlying facts upon
which the cause of action is based.” Watkins v. Lujan, 922 F.2d
261, 265 (5th Cir. 1991). “The purpose of the rule is
accomplished if the initial complaint gives the defendant fair
notice that litigation is arising out of a specific factual
situation.” Longbottom v. Swaby, 397 F.2d 45, 48 (5th Cir.
1968).
The district court concluded that Johnson’s amended pleading
5
did not meet this requirement because “the Title VII claim and
the § 1981 claim are two separate and distinct claims that have
different elements of proof and different procedural requirements
regarding exhaustion of remedies and time limitations.” This
analysis does not follow Rule 15(c), which asks whether the new
claim arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence
as the originally-pleaded one. Although the elements of proof
might be relevant to the decision,2 whether the claims involve
the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence remains the central
issue.
Moreover, several Fifth Circuit cases contradict the
district court’s rigid distinction between Title VII and § 1981
claims. For example, in Watkins, the court held that the
plaintiff’s Title VII allegation related back to her earlier
barred § 1981 pleading “because both causes of action were based
upon the same facts and allegations of discrimination.” 922 F.2d
at 265. Similarly, in Caldwell v. Martin Marietta Corp., 632
F.2d 1184, 1187 (5th Cir. Unit B 1980), the court determined that
a new Title VII claim related back to the date that the plaintiff
originally filed his § 1981 complaint. Although neither of these
cases involved the issue of employee status, each is contrary to
2
See 3 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 15.19[2] at 15-83 (stating
that one relevant factor is “[w]hether the plaintiff will rely on
the same kind of evidence offered in support of the original
claim to prove the new claim”).
6
the district court’s conclusion that the two claims are
inherently different.
Johnson’s § 1981 claims arise from the same conduct,
transaction, or occurrence as his Title VII claims do. The two
claims are based on identical allegations of discrimination; both
are based on the hiring decisions made after Medine’s comments.
The only real difference between the claims is in the
characterization of Johnson’s status as an independent contractor
or as an employee. Thus, the district court erred in concluding
that Johnson’s claims did not relate back under Rule 15.3
Johnson’s claims are not barred by limitations.
Single Enterprise
Johnson further argues that the district court should have
concluded that a fact question existed concerning whether Dixie
3
Johnson’s original Title VII claims may have had a
jurisdictional defect because it appears that Dixie did not have
enough employees to satisfy the statute’s definition of
“employer.” See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 380 F.3d 219, 224-25 (5th
Cir. 2004) (reiterating that failure to meet Title VII’s employee
count requirement deprives the court of jurisdiction). The
relation back of Johnson’s § 1981 claim cures this problem, as
well. In Sessions v. Rusk State Hospital, we described this
cure:
A complaint that is defective because it does not allege
a claim within the subject matter jurisdiction of a
federal court may be amended to state a different claim
over which the federal court has jurisdiction. If the
claim asserted in the amendment arises out of the conduct
or occurrence set forth in the original complaint, the
amendment is given retroactive effect to the date the
original complaint was filed.
648 F.2d 1066, 1070 (5th Cir. 1981)(citations omitted).
7
and Crown formed a single enterprise. If the two formed a single
enterprise, Johnson contends, Crown would be liable for Dixie’s
actions. Johnson’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s
Radio Union test for determining a single enterprise under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.4 He argues that this single enterprise
test, which this circuit has applied in Title VII and other
employment discrimination cases, should also apply to § 1981
cases.
This circuit first applied the four-factor single enterprise
test to determine whether two entities served as a single
employer for Title VII purposes in Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701
F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1983). The four relevant factors are “(1)
interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor
relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or
financial control.” Trevino, 701 F.2d at 404. The second factor
has been refined into an inquiry about “[w]hat entity made the
final decisions regarding employment matters related to the
person claiming discrimination?” Id. (quoting Odriozola v.
Superior Cosmetic Distribs., Inc., 531 F. Supp. 1070, 1076
(D.P.R. 1982)). This factor, furthermore, has been called the
most important one. Schweitzer v. Advanced Telemarketing Corp.,
104 F.3d 761, 764 (5th Cir. 1997). But see Carpenter Local Union
4
The Court articulated this test in Radio & Television
Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of
Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).
8
No. 846 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Pratt-Farnsworth,
Inc., 690 F.2d 489, 505 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[N]o one of the factors
is controlling . . . nor need all criteria be present.”)(citation
omitted).
Assuming that the Trevino test applies, Johnson seems to
have presented evidence of the interrelation of operations and,
to a lesser extent, common management. Crown and Dixie operate
from the same building, and Dixie uses Crown for secretarial
support and supplies, such as copiers and paper. Crown does not
appear to separately account for the time its employees spend
doing administrative work for Dixie. Further, Crown’s personnel
director, Louis Jordan, responded to Johnson’s EEOC charge.
Jordan also testified that any Dixie contractor could have gone
to him with any complaints about the nonrenewal of a contract
with Dixie.
As for common ownership or financial control, both
corporations were formed and originally owned by one person, Ross
Campesi, Sr. Campesi transferred ownership of Crown to one son,
Ross Campesi, Jr., and transferred Dixie to another son, Michael
Campesi. There is, therefore, a history of common ownership and
current family ownership.5
5
In a different context, we have cited with approval cases
indicating that family ownership is common ownership. J. Vallery
Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 337 F.3d 446, 451 n.16 (5th Cir. 2003)
(conducting an alter ego analysis)(citing NLRB v. Dane County
Dairy, 795 F.2d 1313, 1322 (7th Cir. 1986); Goodman Piping
9
Yet Johnson fails to present any evidence that Crown
actually made any of Dixie’s labor decisions, including decisions
regarding the renewal of the driver contracts. The district
court concluded that, because this factor was the most important,
Crown was entitled to summary judgment despite the existence of
some other evidence suggesting that the two might be a single
enterprise. We agree. In this case, the other evidence cannot
override Crown’s lack of involvement with Dixie’s personnel
decisions. Because Johnson has not presented evidence to
establish a fact question concerning whether Dixie and Crown form
a single enterprise, summary judgment on this point was
appropriate.
Appellees’ Other Arguments
Appellees also raise other issues, all of which can be
quickly resolved. First, they argue that Johnson’s amended
complaint was never served in compliance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4. However, Rule 4 does not apply because
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, not Rule 4, governs service of
“every pleading subsequent to the original complaint.” Rule 5(b)
provides for service by delivery, mail, leaving a copy with the
clerk (if no address is available), or by any other means agreed
to in writing by the party being served. What is served in this
Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 741 F.2d 10, 11-12 (2d Cir. 1984); J.M.
Tanaka Constr., Inc. v. NLRB, 675 F.2d 1029, 1035 (9th Cir.
1982).
10
case is the pleading, motion, or other paper, not a summons. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 5(a).
Appellees also argue that the magistrate judge should not
have granted Johnson’s request to file an amended complaint
because it was untimely. Appellees have not advanced any
specific argument for why the decision to permit Johnson to amend
his pleading was an abuse of discretion.6 We see nothing to
suggest that it was.
Finally, Appellees argue that Johnson’s § 1981 claim is
barred by laches. “To establish that a cause of action is barred
by laches, ‘the defendant must show (1) a delay in asserting the
right or claim; (2) that the delay was not excusable; and (3)
that there was undue prejudice to the defendant.’” Goodman v.
Lee, 78 F.3d 1007, 1014 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Geyen v. Marsh,
775 F.2d 1303, 1310 (5th Cir. 1985)). Here, Appellees fail to
present any caselaw or detailed argument in support of this
contention. All that they argue is that Johnson waited too long.
This argument does not satisfy their burden.
Conclusion
The judgment dismissing the U.S.C. § 1981 claim against
Crown Enterprises, Inc. is reversed. The judgment is otherwise
6
“[T]he decision to grant or to deny a motion for leave to
amend lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666
(5th Cir. 1981).
11
affirmed. The case is remanded for resolution of the claim
against Crown Enterprises.
AFFIMRED in Part and REVERSED in Part, and REMANDED.
12