Lewis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 94

RULING denying 87 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying as moot 87 Motion to Expedite because October 21, 2013 has passed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 10/30/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRIAN LEWIS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-747-SDD-RLB

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

RULING
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (R. Doc. 87) his Complaint to
assert new claims against new Defendants and Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite the Court’s ruling
by October 21, 2013 (R. Doc. 87). The current claim before the Court is asserted against
Defendant, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”), for defamation. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that several female employees of Chase accused him of sexual harassment, resulting in
defamation of his character.
Plaintiff now seeks to join as an additional Defendant, the Baton Rouge Police
Department. (R. Doc. 87). Plaintiff alleges that the BRPD engaged in an “illegal search on me,
false[ly] accused me of theft, embarrassment in front of other people searching me on job, threat
of not wanting to free me until cell phone was found, conspiracy with lady customer, racism,
defamation . . . [and] false arrest.” (R. Doc. 87). No further detail or information is otherwise
provided in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
Amendments to pleadings are generally governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Under Rule 15, after the period for amending as a matter of course elapses, “a
party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s

leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Although leave to amend should not be automatically granted,
“[a] district court must possess a substantial reason to deny a request for leave to amend[.]”
Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted).
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allows a plaintiff to join two or
more defendants when a right to relief is asserted that arises “out of the same transactions or
occurrence” and contains common “questions of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.
Plaintiff does not explain how his claims in the current suit against Chase are related to
those asserted against the Baton Rouge Police Department. Nothing in the proposed Amended
Complaint suggests that these new claims “arise out of the same transaction or occurrence” or
contain common “questions of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Likewise, the Court is unable to
consider whether these are “Persons Required to Be Joined” pursuant to Rule 19(a). In fact,
Plaintiff’s factually barren Amended Complaint only indicates that his new claims are wholly
unrelated to the claims pending before this Court. Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged the
citizenship of the new parties and therefore the Court is unable to consider whether jurisdiction
would be proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (R. Doc.
87) is DENIED 1 and because October 21, 2013 has passed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite (R.
Doc. 87) the Court’s ruling on his Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED as moot.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 30, 2013.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

Plaintiff has also failed to attach any proposed amended pleading for the Court to consider.

2