Henson v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition 25 and Motion for Leave to Add Party Defendant 26 are GRANTED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 04/23/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

BONNIE K. HENSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASEY’S GENERAL STORES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-1848 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition
(Doc. No. 25) and Motion for Leave to Add Party Defendant. (Doc. No. 26) Defendants filed a
response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motions on January 7, 2014. (Doc. No. 29) Plaintiff did not
file a reply. The motions are, therefore, fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the following
reasons, the motions will be granted.
Background
On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff Bonnie Henson 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 removed the case on September 19, 2013 based on diversity, 28 U.S.C. §§1332,
1441(a). (Doc. No. 1) Plaintiff was subsequently granted leave to amend her complaint to add
Casey’s Marketing Company as a party defendant. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19) Plaintiff now seeks leave
to file a second amended complaint to add Leslie Mae Buckner, her immediate supervisor, as a

party defendant. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motions, arguing that (1) allowing her to amend
her complaint would be futile, and (2) Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for leave to amend
her complaint after the December 2, 2013 deadline set forth in the Case Management Order.
Legal standard

Motions to amend pleadings implicate the standards for leave to amend under both Rule
15(a) and Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. S & N
Display Fireworks, Inc., 2011 WL 5330744, at *2 (E.D.Mo. Nov. 7, 2011). Under Rule 15(a),
leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Under
this liberal standard, denial of leave to amend pleadings is appropriate only if “there are
compelling reasons such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the nonmoving party, or
futility of the amendment.” Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir.
2008). The same standard of liberality that guides courts in ruling on motions to amend pleadings
applies to motions to add parties. See Fair Housing Development Fund Corp. v. Burke, 55 F.R.D.
414, 419 (E.D. N.Y. 1972).
Where a party seeks leave to amend a pleading outside the deadline established by the
court’s scheduling order, the party must show “good cause” in order to be granted leave to
amend. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). See also Nine v. Williams, 2012 WL 3815627, at *2 (E.D.Mo.
Sept. 4, 2012). “The primary measure of good cause is the movant's diligence in attempting to
meet the order's requirements.” Sherman, 532 F.3d at 716 (citing Rahn v. Hawkins, 464 F.3d
813, 822 (8th Cir.2006)). “While the prejudice to the nonmovant resulting from modification of
the scheduling order may also be a relevant factor, generally, [the court] will not consider
prejudice if the movant has not been diligent in meeting the scheduling order's deadlines.” Id.
(citing Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir.2001)). Whether to grant a motion
-2-

for leave to amend is within the discretion of the Court. Nadist, LLC v. Doe Run Resources
Corp., 2009 WL 3680533, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 30, 2009).
Discussion
Futility
A court may properly deny a motion to amend a pleading if the amendment would be
futile. Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F .3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008) (citing Kozohorsky v.
Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141, 1144 (8th Cir.2003)). An amendment is futile if “the amended
[pleading] could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12, Fed.R.Civ.P.” Lexington
Ins. Co., 2011 WL 5330744, at *2 (quoting Bakhtiari v. Beyer, 2008 WL 3200820, *1
(E.D.Mo.2008)). In turn, a motion to dismiss may only be granted if, taking all facts alleged in
the complaint as true, and construing the complaint liberally in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle
the plaintiff to relief. Carpenter Outdoor Adver. Co. v. City of Fenton, 251 F.3d 686, 688 (8th
Cir.2001). “Likelihood of success on the new claim is no basis for denying an amendment unless
the claim asserted therein is clearly frivolous.” Gamma–10 Plastics, Inc. v. Am. President Lines,
Ltd., 32 F.3d 1244, 1255–56 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting Buder v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc., 644 F.2d 690, 695 (8th Cir. 1981)). See also Popp Telcom v. American Sharecom,
Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 944 (8th Cir.2000).
Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to assert a claim against her immediate supervisor
Ms. Buckner under the MHRA. Defendants argue Plaintiff’s proposed claim is futile because she
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies against Ms. Buckner by naming her in the charge of
discrimination. (Doc. No. 29, pp. 3-5)
The fact that Plaintiff did not specifically name Ms. Buckner in her administrative charge

-3-

is not fatal to a prospective MHRA claim as Defendants contend. It is true that in order to initiate
a MHRA claim in court, a plaintiff must first timely file an administrative complaint against the
alleged discriminating party with the Missouri Human Rights Commission (MHRC). Hill v. Ford
Motor Co., 324 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1034 (E.D.Mo.2004) (citing Stuart v. General Motors, 217 F.3d
621, 630–31 (8th Cir.2000)). However, courts have recognized several exceptions to the general
rule that a defendant must first be named in the administrative charge, including the “identity of
interests” and “actual notice” exceptions. Id. (and cases cited therein). These exceptions are
similar in that an unnamed party will not be dismissed if he or she had adequate notice of the
charge and opportunity to participate in conciliation proceedings aimed at voluntary compliance.
Id. (citing Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 1985); Sedlacek v. Hach, 752 F.2d
333, 336 (8th Cir. 1985)). See also Burrell v. Truman Medical Center, Inc., 721 F.Supp. 230,
233-34 (W.D.Mo. 1989)). It is not for the Court to decide at this juncture whether Ms. Buckner
in fact had actual notice of the administrative charge and an opportunity to participate in the
MHRC proceedings. These are questions more appropriately addressed in connection with a
summary judgment motion and a complete evidentiary record. See Hill, 324 F.Supp.2d at 1034.
For these reasons, the Court finds the claim Plaintiff seeks to add is not clearly frivolous.
Good Cause
Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for failing to
comply with the December 2, 2013 deadline for filing motions for joinder of additional parties or
amendment of pleadings set forth in the Case Management Order. (Doc. No. 29, p. 3) In her

motion for leave to file her amended complaint, Plaintiff states that her counsel informed the
Court that he was exploring the probability of adding a party defendant to this cause, and
represented to the Court that as soon as he could ascertain the necessity of the same, he would do

-4-

so. (Doc. No. 25, ¶ 1) Plaintiff’s motions were filed on December 20, 2013, eighteen days after
the motion deadline and certainly not late enough to be prejudicial. Defendants were on notice
that Plaintiff might seek to add another party. Moreover, delay in seeking to amend, alone, is an
insufficient justification to deny leave. Issues of delay must be considered with other factors
showing prejudice to the non-moving party. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 455
(8th Cir.1998) (citing Buder, 644 F.2d at 694).
The Court finds the circumstances do not justify denying Plaintiff leave to amend.
Discovery remains open, neither side has filed dispositive motions, and the additional claim is
based on facts similar to the original complaint. Cf. Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835
(8th Cir. 2004) (given the advanced stage of the litigation process, court did not abuse its
discretion in denying plaintiff leave to file amended complaint one year after initial complaint
was filed and after defendant had moved for summary judgment). Finally, the trial date remains
ten months away.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition
[25] and Motion for Leave to Add Party Defendant [26] are GRANTED.

_________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2014.

-5-