French v. Central Credit Services, et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Civil Action to Add Missouri Human Right Acts Claims under the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute (ECF No. 38 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order of Jeanne Hawkins' Tax Transcripts (ECF No. 37 ) is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 47 ) is GRANTED to and including July 24, 2017. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on July 20, 2017. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH LAMONT FRENCH,
Plaintiff,
v.

CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, et al. ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV1654 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Court Order of Jeanne Hawkins '
Tax Transcripts (ECF No. 37) and Motion to Amend Civil Action to Add Missouri Human Right
Acts Claims under the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute (ECF No. 38). The Defendants filed
Memoranda in opposition to both motions (ECF Nos. 45, 46). With respect to the motion to
amend, Plaintiff subsequently filed a memorandum supporting his claims under the Missouri
Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Title VII, and the Equal Pay Act (ECF No. 48).
On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in federal court alleging claims under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and in
violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201 , et seq . According to the Complaint,
Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Central Credit Services (CCS). 1 (Compl. ~I, ECF No.
1) He was terminated from employment on September 26, 2014. (Id.

at~

IV) Plaintiff contends

that Defendant awarded his successor, a female, a higher salary in violation of the Equal Pay Act
and Title VII. (Id.

1

at~

I) Further, Plaintiff avers that his supervisor created a hostile work

Plaintiff avers that Defendant Radius Global Solutions, LLC purchased Defendant Integrity
Solution Services, Inc. and changed the name to Central Credit Services. (Compl. ~IV , ECF No.
1) Plaintiff has named all three companies as Defendants in this case.

environment in an effort to constructively discharge Plaintiff. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff claims
he was subjected to retaliatory harassment for complaining of compensation discrimination and
harassment, which resulted in his wrongful termination. (Id. at if IV) Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, including punitive damages, from Defendants for intentional compensation
discrimination and wrongful termination. (Id. at if V)
On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present Motions for Court Order of Jeanne Hawkins'
Tax Transcripts and to Amend Civil Action to Add Missouri Human Right Acts Claims under
the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute. In response, Defendants maintain that they provided
Jeanne Hawkins' 2014 and 2015 W-2s, thus mooting the Motion to Compel. Plaintiff has not
opposed Defendants' contention, and thus the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion as moot.
With regard to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend to add state law claims under the MHRA,
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs request is untimely under the Case Management Order
("CMO") of February 9, 2017, setting forth the deadline to amend pleadings as March 2, 2107.
(ECF No. 30) The CMO states that "the following schedule shall apply in this case, and will be
modified only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances[.]" Defendants contend that
Plaintiff has failed to show the requisite exceptional circumstances in this case.
Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court should freely grant
leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. " [T]he court has broad discretion and will
only deny leave to amend in order to avoid undue delay, where there has been bad faith on the
part of the plaintiff, when amendment would be futile or when amendment would result in unfair
prejudice to the defendants." Swider v. Hologic, Inc., Civil No. 12-1547 (DSD/AJB), 2012 WL
6015558, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2012) (citation omitted). However, " [w]here a party seeks
leave to amend a complaint after the deadline in the applicable case management order has

2

passed, the [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 16(b) good-cause standard applies first, then the
' when justice so requires' standard of Rule 15(a) applies. " Jo Ann Howard & Assoc., P.C. v.

Cassity, No. 4:09-CV-01252-ER, 2014 WL 6607077, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2014). "Good
cause requires a change in circumstances, law, or newly discovered facts." Id. (citing Hartis v.

Chicago Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 948 (8th Cir. 2012)).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate good cause such that
amendment of the Complaint is not warranted. Plaintiff filed his motion nearly four months past
the deadline for amendment of pleadings and eight weeks before the close of discovery. He
provides no reasons for the delay other than he is unable to recover adequate losses under Title
VII. His "response" offers no further justification for moving to file an amended complaint at
this late juncture, and instead addresses only the allegations and discovery related to his federal
claims. Indeed, Plaintiff was aware of his MHRA claims in November, 2016, when the
Missouri Commission on Human Rights issued 2 Notices of Right to Sue. (Defs. ' Mem. in
Opp 'n Ex. D, ECF No. 45-4) However, Plaintiff did not request to add the MHRA claims until
well-after he received the notices and after the deadline for amending the complaint had expired.
In short, Plaintiff has failed to allege that circumstances have changed since he
commenced this action. See Hartis, 694 F.3d at 948-49 (denying plaintiffs' motion to amend
where plaintiffs were not diligent in seeking to amend their complaint and where they failed to
allege a change in the law, discovery of new facts, or any other change in circumstances);

Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding district court properly denied the
motion to amend complaint where it was filed ten months after the court entered the scheduling
order and seven weeks before the close of discovery and where plaintiff failed to provide a
reason why punitive damages could not have been alleged earlier). The Court is cognizant of

3

Plaintiffs prose status. However, "[a] prose litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a
lawyer .... " Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000); see also Escobar v.
Cross, No. 4:12CV00023-JN, 2013 WL 709113, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 27, 2013) ("Prose
litigants are required to follow the same rules of procedure, including the local court rules, that
govern other litigants."). Here, Plaintiff participated in drafting the proposed joint scheduling
plan and in the Rule 16 Conference held before this Court. He was fully aware of, and consented
to, the dates set forth in the CMO. Plaintiff is responsible as a prose litigant for following all
rules and orders, including the CMO. Because his motion to amend fails to comply with the
deadline set forth in the CMO, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for such
failure, the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Civil Action to Add

Missouri Human Right Acts Claims under the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute (ECF No. 38) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Court Order of Jeanne

Hawkins' Tax Transcripts (ECF No. 37) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to Respond

to Defendants ' Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED to and
including July 24, 2017.
Dated this 20th day of July, 2017.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4