Chambers v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/15/11. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
CARLA V. CHAMBERS
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 11-0404
:
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently
pending
and
ready
for
resolution
in
this
employment discrimination case is a motion for leave to amend
the
complaint
(ECF No. 12).
filed
by
Plaintiff
Carla
V.
Chambers.
The issues have been fully briefed and the court
now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed
necessary.
For the reasons that follow, the court will grant
Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
I.
Background
The
following
(ECF No. 1).
facts
are
set
forth
in
the
complaint.
Plaintiff Carla V. Chambers, an African American
woman, was employed by Defendant Choice Hotels International,
Inc.
as
a
developer
February 4, 2010.
from
July
(Id. ¶ 5).
2007
until
her
discharge
on
Although Plaintiff received an
above average performance evaluation for the period January 1,
2009 to December 31, 2009, on January 15, 2010, Plaintiff was
allegedly
discharged
for
errors
“evidencing
a
continued
inability to meet standards of performance.”
(Id. ¶¶ 7, 8).
Defendant cites errors made in November 2009 and on February 2,
2010, as reasons for Plaintiff’s discharge.
(Id. ¶¶ 9, 13).
Plaintiff alleges that the November 2009 error was not cited in
her January 2010 performance evaluation and that persons other
than Plaintiff were responsible for the error.
(Id. ¶¶ 9, 10).
Plaintiff also contends that she was not responsible for the
February 2, 2010 error.
(Id. ¶ 13).
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on October 4, 2010,
and cross-filed the charge with the Montgomery County, Maryland,
Office of Human Rights.
(Id. ¶¶ 15, 16).
notice
by
of
right
to
sue
the
EEOC
After receiving a
on
November
30,
2010,
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court on February 14, 2011,
alleging racially discriminatory discharge in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
(“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981”).
Plaintiff
second
seeks
defendant,
Corporation, Inc.
response
to
leave
to
Choice
amend
Hotels
(ECF No. 12 ¶ 10).
Defendant’s
assertion
the
(Id. ¶¶ 17-27).
complaint
International
to
add
a
Services
Plaintiff’s motion is a
that
Plaintiff
was
not
employed by Defendant “Choice Hotels International,” but “Choice
Hotels
International
Services
Corporation,
Inc.”
Plaintiff
argues that the court should permit the amendment in order to
2
prevent
Defendant
from
“escaping
liability
confusion it has created over its own name.”
opposes the motion.
II.
because
(Id.).
of
the
Defendant
(ECF No. 13).
Standard of Review
Plaintiff
has
moved
to
amend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
leave
to
amend
requires.”
should
be
the
complaint
pursuant
to
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that
freely
given
“when
justice
so
Thus, “leave to amend should be denied only when the
amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has
been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or amendment
would
be
futile.”
BearingPoint,
Inc.,
Matrix
576
F.3d
Capital
172,
193
Mgmt.
(4th
Fund,
Cir.
LP
v.
2009).
An
amendment is futile if it would fail to withstand a motion to
Perkins v. United States, 55 F.3d 910, 917 (4th Cir.
dismiss.
1995).
“Under modern practice, if the right party is before the
court,
although
under
a
wrong
name,
an
misnomer of parties will be allowed.”
amendment
to
cure
a
United States v. A.H.
Fischer Lumber Co., 162 F.2d 872, 874 (4th Cir. 1947) (internal
quotation
marks
and
S.C.C.P.
Painting
citation
omitted);
Contractors,
Inc.,
see
589
also
Montoya
F.Supp.2d
569,
v.
573
(D.Md. 2008) (granting motion for leave to amend summons and
complaint to correct misnomer).
Amendments to correct misnomer
may be allowed notwithstanding the running of the statue of
limitations in the interim between the commencement of the suit
3
and the motion for amendment, and the amendment will relate back
to the institution of the suit.
A.H. Fischer Lumber Co., 162
F.2d at 874; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(C) (providing that
an amended pleading relates back to the date of the original
pleading when the amendment changes the naming of the party
against whom the claim is asserted if “the party to be brought
in by amendment (i) received such notice of the action that it
will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (2) knew
or should have known that the action would have been brought
against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s
identity.”).
III. Analysis
Plaintiffs’ motion is a straightforward request for leave
to amend to correct the misnomer in her original complaint.
Defendant argues that leave to amend should be denied, however,
because Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rules 103.6.a
and 103.6.c is materially prejudicial to Defendant.
also
argues
that
Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff
knew
previously
Services
Corporation,
motion
that
Inc.”
is
“Choice
was
made
Hotels
the
to
Defendant
delay,
as
International
correct
party.
(ECF No. 13).
Local Rule 103.6.a provides that a party seeking to amend a
pleading shall include an original copy of the proposed amended
pleading with the motion.
Further, Local Rule 103.6.c provides
4
that a “party filing an amended pleading shall file and serve
(1) a clean copy of the amended pleading and (2) a copy of the
amended
pleading
through
or
underlined
in
enclosed
or
set
which
in
stricken
brackets
forth
in
material
and
new
bold-faced
has
been
material
type.”
As
lined
has
been
Plaintiff
failed to include a copy of the amended complaint and a copy of
the
amended
complaint
with
the
proposed
changes
indicated,
Defendant argues that the instant motion should be denied.
Although
Defendant
is
correct
in
its
assertion
that
Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 103.6, Defendant was
not materially prejudiced by Plaintiff’s non-compliance.
motion
to
amendment
amend
to
the
the
complaint,
complaint
Plaintiff
was
to
specified
add
In her
that
“Choice
International Services Corporation” as a defendant.
the
Hotels
Although
Plaintiff did not properly attach a blacklined proposed amended
complaint
to
her
original
motion,
the
blacklined
complaint
attached to her reply (ECF. No. 14, Ex. 2), indicates that the
only change sought was the addition of a second party as stated
by Plaintiff’s original motion.
(ECF No. 12).
had sufficient notice of the proposed change.
Thus, Defendant
Plaintiff is
expected to comply fully with Local Rule 103 in the future.
Further,
Defendant’s
assertion
cause undue delay is unfounded.
that
Plaintiff
seeks
to
The original scheduling order
stipulated that the deadline for amendment of the pleadings and
5
joinder of parties in this action was May 6, 2011.
(ECF No. 8).
As Plaintiff filed the instant motion on May 6, 2011, she was
within the deadline to amend the pleadings set by the scheduling
order.
Although Defendant alerted Plaintiff that “Choice Hotels
International”
Plaintiff
was
waited
not
the
until
correct
May
to
party
file
in
the
March
2011
instant
and
motion
(ECF No. 13, Exs. 1-3), delay alone, without any prejudice, does
not support the denial of leave to amend.
Deasy v. Hill, 833
F.2d 38, 40 (4th Cir. 1987).
As
Plaintiff’s
proposed
amended
complaint
is
not
prejudicial to Defendant, has not been made in bad faith, and is
not alleged to be futile, this court will grant Plaintiff’s
motion to amend.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint will relate back
to the date of her original pleading pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(c)(1)(C).
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to amend filed by
Plaintiff Carla V. Chambers will be granted.
A separate order
will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?