Holmes v. All American Check Cashing, Inc. et al

Filing 153

ORDER denying 145 Motion for Joinder; denying 148 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 11/20/15. (bnd)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION

TAMIKA HOLMES

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:11-CV-7-NBB-SAA

ALL AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff has moved to amend her complaint1 to join the City of Bolivar, Tennessee as a
party as a result of a recent arrest. Docket 148. Although defendant has not objected to the
proposed amendment, defendant did raise a question whether the court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over the City of Bolivar in this case. Docket 149, p. 2. Plaintiff has filed no reply in
support of her motion despite the strong arguments raised by defendant, and the time for filing a
response has run.
A party desiring to amend its complaint after an answer has been served must receive
written consent of the opposing party or obtain leave of court. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). The Fifth
Circuit has held “[a]mendments should be liberally allowed,” but “leave to amend is by no
means automatic.” Halbert v. City of Sherman, 33 F.3d 526, 529 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations
omitted); Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). The
court may consider such factors as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, (and) futility of

1

Plaintiff initially filed a Motion for Joinder of Defendant, City of Bolivar, Tennessee
(Docket # 145) that will be considered along with her Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint.

amendment” in determining whether to grant a motion to amend. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962).
Defendant asserts, and the court agrees, that plaintiff’s proposed amendment or joinder
would be futile because the City of Bolivar, Tennessee is not subject to the personal jurisdiction
of this court. Docket 149, p. 2. The United States Supreme Court established in International
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) that a court may only exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state “such that
the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” The Court has further said that “it is essential in each case that there be some act by
which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the
forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357
U.S. 235, 253 (1958).
Plaintiff has not alleged any activity on behalf of the City of Bolivar, Tennessee that
occurred in Mississippi or any actions that the City of Bolivar, Tennessee has taken to avail itself
of the privilege of conducting activities within the State of Mississippi. In fact, her Proposed
Amended Complaint as it relates to the City of Bolivar, Tennessee alleges that plaintiff “was
taken into custody initially by the Memphis Police Department and then transported by the City
of Bolivar. The City of Bolivar held her overnight until she was released on January 7, 2015.”
Docket 148, Exhibit 1, p. 6.
Plaintiff does not make any claim that the City of Bolivar, Tennessee otherwise has
subjected itself to personal jurisdiction in this court. Therefore, this court cannot exercise
personal jurisdiction over the City of Bolivar, Tennessee, and the Amended Complaint would be

2

futile. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Docket 148) and Motion for Joinder of
Defendant, City of Bolivar, Tennessee (Docket 145) are DENIED.
This, the 20th day of November, 2015.
/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3