Murphy v. E.Z. Cash II, LLC

Filing 37

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Stay; granting 23 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 7/23/18. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
KATHYRN L. MURPHY

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18CV52-NBB-RP

E.Z. CASH II, LLC

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Plaintiff has moved to amend her complaint to add EZ Cash V, LLC as a defendant.
Docket 23. Defendant, E.Z. Cash II, LLC has objected to the prosed amendment asserting that
plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to E.Z. Cash V, LLC, thus
making the proposed amendment futile. Docket 32.
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
amendment” in determining whether to grant a motion to amend. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962).
Plaintiff named E.Z. Cash II, LLC as a defendant in her complaint and in her Charge of
1

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserting that it committed
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Docket 1. E.Z. Cash II, LLC has filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that plaintiff has never been employed by E.Z. Cash II,
LLC, but instead was employed by E.Z. Cash V, LLC. Docket 20. As a result, defendant
alleges that plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies against E.Z. Cash V, LLC
and should not be allowed to amend her complaint to identify the proper employer.
Plaintiff argues that defendant is judicially estopped from asserting that E.Z. Cash II,
LLC is not a property party to the litigation because defendant’s response to the Petition to
Controvert in the workers’ compensation case admitted that plaintiff’s employer was E.Z. Cash
II, LLC. Docket 33, p. 2. The Fifth Circuit has held that “judicial estoppel prevents a party
from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party
in a previous proceeding.” Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F. 3d 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2011).
The court has considered defendant’s objection on grounds of futility and finds that
plaintiff’s proposed amendment should be allowed. In light of defendant’s admissions in the
worker’s compensation case, the undersigned will decline to conclude at this time that the
plaintiff has failed to pursue her administrative remedies against E.Z. Cash V, LLC. Such a
potentially dispositive issue is better suited, in this case, for determination in summary judgment
proceedings. For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file her amended complaint is
GRANTED. Plaintiff must file her amended complaint in the form attached to its motion
(Docket 23) by July 31, 2018.
Defendant has filed a four-sentence motion to stay all discovery pending a ruling on the
Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant simply states that “Plaintiff should not be allowed
2

to conduct discovery against a party that is incorrectly named as a Defendant.” Docket 22.
Plaintiff responds that discovery is necessary to ascertain whether E.Z. Cash II, LLC and E.Z.
Cash V, LLC are one integrated enterprise for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Docket 28. The court is not convinced that a stay of this case is proper. Clearly an issue
exists as to the identify of the proper defendant and the only way to clarify that issue is through
discovery. As such, defendant’s Motion to Stay (Docket 22) is DENIED.
This, the 23rd day of July, 2018.
/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3