Taylor v. MGM Resorts International, LLC et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/6/2024. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:

SAUNDRA TAYLOR

:

v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 21-3192

:
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Saundra Taylor filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint on August 30, 2023, seeking to reassert
previously

dismissed

Counts

II

through

V.

(ECF

No.

79).

Defendants filed a response in opposition on September 7, 2023
(ECF No. 80) and Plaintiff filed a reply on September 14, 2023
(ECF No. 82).

Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to file a

fourth amended complaint on October 19, 2023.

(ECF No. 89).

Defendants filed a response in opposition on November 1, 2023 (ECF
No. 90) and Plaintiff filed a reply on November 7, 2023 (ECF No.
91).

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions will be

denied.
The court issued a memorandum opinion and order on July 27,
2022, dismissing Count II - violation of Title II of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; Count III - intentional infliction of emotional
distress, Count IV - negligent hiring, retention, and supervision,
and Count V - negligence.

(ECF Nos. 17, 18).

Count 1 - defamation

remained.

Plaintiff subsequently filed three motions for leave to

amend, two interlocutory appeals, and a motion for reconsideration
in an effort to reassert the dismissed counts. 1 Although the court
allowed Plaintiff to amend to name Steven Manning as a Defendant,
Plaintiff was unsuccessful in reasserting Counts II through V.
“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).
Leave is properly denied when “the proposed amended complaint fails
to satisfy the requirements of the federal rules.”

U.S. ex rel.

Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff fails to identify any comparators, a pattern of
disparate treatment, or statements or conduct indicative of racial
animus.

The conclusory sentences added in the proposed third and

fourth amended complaints fail to illustrate racial animus and
fail to provide specific incidents alleging that MGM knew of any
incidents where Mr. Manning defamed any member of the public prior
to

the

incident

involving

Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s

proposed

additions reflect her viewpoint and allege no new facts or conduct

See the court’s memorandum opinions and orders denying leave
to amend on April 11, 2023 (ECF Nos. 43, 44), May 8, 2023 (ECF
Nos. 58, 59), and August 21, 2023 (ECF Nos. 76, 77), the court’s
memorandum opinion and order denying reconsideration (ECF Nos. 58,
59), and the judgments dismissing Plaintiff’s interlocutory
appeals issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit (ECF Nos. 22 and 68).
1

2

that rises to the level of “extreme and outrageous” conduct under
Maryland law.
In

sum,

Plaintiff’s

proposed

third

and

fourth

amended

complaints contain revised versions that do not contain sufficient
facts to state claims for relief as required by the federal rules.
Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend will be denied because her
proposed amendments would be futile. A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3