Reynolds v. UHS of Delaware, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; denying 12 Motion to Amend/Correct; Plaintiff's claims are dismissed and the Clerk is directed to terminate all deadlines and motions and close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 5/8/15. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

ADRIENNE REYNOLDS,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

U.H.S. of Delaware, Inc.
d/b/a/ Saint Simons

*
*

by the Sea Hospital,

*

Defendant.

CV 214-129

*

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss

no. 10)

and Plaintiff's motion to amend (doc. no.

(doc.

12) . For the

reasons set forth herein, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and
the motion to amend is DENIED.

I.

On August,

8, 2014,

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff,

through counsel,

filed a

complaint in this Court against U.H.S. of Delaware, Inc. d/b/a
Saint Simons by the Sea Hospital pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act alleging race and age discrimination.

(Compl.

11 29-44.) On November 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Voluntary
Dismissal

Simons,

of

Inc.

Defendant

and

as Defendant."

Substitution

(Doc. no.

Plaintiff states the following:

of

7.)

H.H.C.

of

Saint

In her dismissal,

[Plaintiff] voluntarily dismisses Defendant U.H.S.
of Delaware, Inc. and amends to substitute H.H.C.
of St. Simons, Inc. as Defendant herein. Counsel
for U.H.S. of Delaware, Inc. has notified counsel

for Plaintiff that U.H.S. of Delaware,
a proper party to this action,

dismisses U.H.S.

of Delaware,

Inc.

is not

therefore Plaintiff

Inc.

and shall amend

her Complaint accordingly.
(Id. ) Plaintiff did not
dismissal.

file an amended complaint with her

On December 30,

2014,

Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint dismissing U.H.S. St. Simons, Inc., d/b/a St. Simons

by the Sea as

Defendant and adding H.H.C.

St.

Simons,

Inc.

d/b/a St. Simons by the Sea as Defendant. (Am Compl. at 1.)
On February 4, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

subject matter jurisdiction.
that,
the

Procedure

12(b)(1)

(Doc. no. 10.)

for

lack of

Defendant argues

by failing to add the proper party prior to dismissing

only

action

Defendant

and

in this

stripped

the

action,

Court

of

Plaintiff

dismissed

jurisdiction.

the

Plaintiff

acknowledges that she should have filed her Amended Complaint

contemporaneously
contends,

however,

with

her

that

the

dismissal.

(Doc.

forty-seven

day

no.
delay

11.)
did

She
not

prejudice Defendant's ability to defend against Plaintiff's

claims. According to Plaintiff,
Plaintiff's

claims

since

Defendant has had notice of

Plaintiff

filed

charges

with

the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on January 3, 2014.
On

February

Amend/Correct

25,

2015,

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff

filed

Response

in

a

"Motion

Opposition

to
to

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss."
that "counsel for both U.H.S.

St.

Simons,

Inc.,

has

(Doc. no.

12.)

of Delaware,

brought

to

She explains

Inc.,

Plaintiff's

and H.H.C.

counsel's

attention" certain information regarding which entity is the
proper Defendant in this case.

(Doc. no. 12.) Plaintiff admits

that her "Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant and Substitution of
H.H.C.

13,

of Saint Simons,

2014,

Inc.

as Defendant" filed on November

should have been captioned "Motion for Leave

to

Amend to Name the Proper Defendant" as contemplated by Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

15(c).

Despite

the

mistakes,

Plaintiff's counsel requests that the amendment be permitted
and the naming of the party be changed.

II.

DISCUSSION

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course

before being served with a responsive pleading. Miller v. R.

L. Conway, 331 F. Appx. 664, 665 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed.
R.

Civ.

dismissal,
H.H.C.
Rule

P.

Thus,

when

Plaintiff

she could have amended her Complaint

Saint

15.

15(a)(1)).

Simon's,

Instead,

she

Inc.

as

filed

to

her

include

the proper party pursuant

dismissed

the

sole

Defendant,

to

then

attempted to add the correct Defendant forty-seven days later.
Plaintiff's counsel admits her two procedural errors and asks

the Court to liberally construe her pleadings.

Pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

41(a)(1),

Plaintiff's dismissal was effective when filed and the Court

now lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.
Dillav v.

City of E.

(N.D.

Sept.

Ga.

further

action

immediately

15,

Point,

2006 WL 266 WL

2006) (court lacks

because

concludes

Rule

41(a)(1)

litigation

of

2661057,

at

*1

jurisdiction to take

voluntary
dismissed

dismissal
claims).

Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

III.

CONCLUSION

Upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion
to dismiss (doc. no. 10)
amend

(doc.

DISMISSED.

and motions

no.

The

12)

Clerk

and CLOSE

is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motion to
is

is

DENIED.

DIRECTED

this

Plaintiff's

to

TERMINATE

are

all

deadlines

jy

day of

case.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
May,

claims

2015.

Honor^oTe J.

Randal Hall

'states District Judge
fern District of Georgia