Cunningham v. School Board of Lake County, Florida et al

Filing 13

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Add Defendant, Susan Moxley, in her Individual Capacity 11 is GRANTED. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file his amended complaint. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 5 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 2/10/2016. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

DAVID CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-480-Oc-30PRL

SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE
COUNTY and SUSAN MOXLEY,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
the Complaint to Add Defendant, Susan Moxley, in Her Individual Capacity (Doc. 11) and
Defendants’ response in opposition (Doc. 12). Plaintiff initiated this action against the
School Board of Lake County and Susan Moxley after he was demoted from principal to
teacher alleging claims for constitutional violations, race discrimination under Title VII
and the Florida Civil rights Act, and breach of contract. (Doc. 1). Defendants moved to
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 5), and Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc.
10). Before the Court ruled on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed the present
motion seeking leave to amend his complaint to assert claims against Defendant Susan
Moxley in her individual capacity.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a “court should freely give leave
[to amend] when justice so requires.” Leave to amend generally is granted unless there is

a significant reason for the amendment’s denial. Pioneer Metals, Inc. v. Univar USA, Inc.,
168 F. App’x 335, 337 (11th Cir. 2006). Permissible reasons justifying denial are “undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party . .
., [and] futility of amendment.” Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Defendants express concern that if Plaintiff’s amendment is permitted, Susan
Moxley may need to obtain counsel and that counsel would have had no input in the case
management schedule or deadlines. (Doc. 12). The Court does not find this concern
sufficiently substantial to warrant denial of Plaintiff’s motion. In the event Susan Moxley
needs to obtain counsel or the Court’s ruling necessitates new case management and
scheduling deadlines, the parties are invited to petition the Court to the extend the deadlines
and the Court will remain mindful of the latitude granted Plaintiff and the timing of the
present ruling.
Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Add Defendant,

Susan Moxley, in her Individual Capacity (Doc. 11) is GRANTED.
2.

Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file his amended

complaint.
3.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 5) is DENIED

as moot.

2

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of February, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\OCALA\2015\15-cv-480 amend 11.docx

3