Henson v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Substitute Improper Defendant 5 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 17 is GRANTED. IT IS FURT HER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Implead Additional Party Defendant 12 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss 6 is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/29/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

BONNIE HENSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASEY’S GENERAL STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1848 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Substitute
Improper Defendant (Doc. No. 5) and Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6), and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Implead Additional Party Defendant (Doc. No. 12) and Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 17)
On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed her original petition alleging a violation of the
Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.011 et seq, and discriminatory discharge
under the Missouri Worker’s Compensation Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.780, in the Circuit Court
of St. Francois County, naming Defendant Casey’s General Stores, Inc. (Doc. No. 8) Defendant
filed a notice of removal on September 19, 2013 based on diversity, 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441(a).
(Doc. No. 1)1 Defendant contends that Plaintiff has named the wrong defendant in her lawsuit in
that she was employed by Casey’s Marketing Company, not Casey’s General Stores, Inc.
Defendant moves for either dismissal of Plaintiff’s petition or substitution of Casey’s Marketing

1

Plaintiff concedes the case was properly removed. (Doc. No. 13)

Company as the proper party defendant. Plaintiff opposes substitution and seeks to add Casey’s
Marketing Company as a party defendant.
As a basis for adding this Defendant, Plaintiff submits her 2012 W-2 Wage and Tax
Statement identifying her employer as “Casey’s General Stores, Inc.: Agent for Casey’s Marketing
Company,” the cover letter reflecting transmission of her personnel file on Casey’s General Stores,
Inc., letterhead, and a corrective action statement on a Casey’s General Stores form. (Doc. No. 12-1,
pp. 1-6) In addition, Defendant’s Disclosure of Corporate Interests shows that Casey’s Marketing
Company is, in fact, a wholly owned subsidiary of Casey’s General Stores, Inc. (Id., p. 7) Plaintiff
argues that this record justifies adding Casey’s Marketing Company for purposes of exploring the
relationship between the two corporations. (Doc. No. 13, p. 6) At this stage of the litigation, the

Court sees little or no prejudice to the current parties by the addition of Casey’s Marketing
Company. Thus, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss or substitute party, grant
Plaintiff leave to file her amended complaint, and deny Plaintiff’s motion to implead party and
Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Substitute
Improper Defendant [5] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint [17] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Implead Additional Party
Defendant [12] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [6] is
DENIED as moot.

-2-

Dated this 29th day of October, 2013.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-