Gagne v. Harleysville Group, Inc. et al
Filing
16
Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered granting 10 Motion to Amend Complaint Removed From State Court by Kimberly Gagne. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the Amended Complaint in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. (Belpedio, Lisa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
KIMBERLY GAGNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARLEYSVILLE GROUP, INC. et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-40018-DHH
ORDER
March 4, 2014
Hennessy, M.J.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Kimberly Gagne’s motion to amend the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).1 (Docket #10).
The complaint was originally filed in Massachusetts Superior Court on January 10, 2014,
alleging claims of employment discrimination in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B.
(Docket #1-1). Defendants Harleysville Group, Inc. and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
removed the action to this Court on February 10, 2014, despite not having been served with the
complaint. (Docket #1). The present motion was filed on February 14, 2014 (Docket #10).
Gagne had not yet served Defendants at the time the motion was filed. (Docket #10 at 1).
Defendants filed an answer on February 18, 2014, again, despite not having been served with the
complaint. (Docket #11).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), allows a party to amend its pleading once as
a matter of course within “21 days after serving it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Because Gagne
1
The motion to amend was stricken due to clerical error on February 20, 2014 (Docket #13) and reinstated on
March 4, 2014 (Docket #15).
has not previously filed an amended complaint and had yet to serve Defendants at the time the
motion was filed, the motion to amend the complaint (Docket #10) is ALLOWED.
/S/ David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?