Cummings v. Valley Health System, LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER that 21 Motion to Amend is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file proof of service or a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Gomez within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 7 ANGELA CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. 9 10 Case No. 2:16-cv-02486-JCM-GWF VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC, et al., Defendants. 11 12 Presently before the court is plaintiff Angela Cummings’ motion to amend/correct 13 complaint. (ECF No. 21). Defendant Valley Health System, LLC filed a response (ECF No. 14 24), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 26). 15 I. 16 Facts The instant action involves allegations of retaliatory interference with prospective 17 employment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e-3 eq seq. and NRS 613.200(1) and NRS 18 613.210, arising from a rescission of a job offer by the Veterans Administration (“VA”) 19 allegedly based on circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s employment history. (ECF No. 13). 20 Plaintiff filed the original complaint in state court on September 21, 2016. (ECF No. 1- 21 3). Defendant removed the action to federal court on October 25, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff 22 later amended her complaint on November 18, 2016. (ECF No. 13). 23 In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks leave to amend her first amended complaint to 24 remove defendant Aurora Gomez and to clarify allegations regarding a letter sent by the VA. 25 (ECF No. 21). 26 II. 27 28 Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme 1 Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply 2 when granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained: 3 In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such 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, futility of the amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 4 5 6 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Further, Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the 7 8 opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Local Rule 15- 9 1(a) states that “the moving party shall attach the proposed amended pleading to any motion 10 seeking leave of the court to file an amended pleading.” LR 15-1(a). 11 III. 12 Discussion In the instant motion, plaintiff asserts that the second amended complaint merely seeks to 13 clarify certain allegations, remove Gomez as a defendant, and raise the possibility of future 14 amendments. (ECF No. 21 at 4). Plaintiff contends that the proposed amended complaint sets 15 forth facts that defendant claims were lacking and removes Gomez because “it is recognized that 16 the allegations as to Gomez need further evidentiary support.” (ECF No. 26 at 3) 17 In response, defendant argues that leave to amend should be denied because the motion is 18 sought in bad faith and with dilatory motive and any amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 24 19 at 5–6). Specifically, defendant contends that the motion should be denied as futile because the 20 proposed second amended complaint merely adds conclusory allegations insufficient to survive a 21 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 24 at 6). Defendant further contends that the motion is made “in 22 bad faith and as a dilatory tactic given the clear evidence from the VA that contradicts the new 23 speculative allegations.” (ECF No. 24 at 7). 24 Plaintiff asserts in her response to defendant’s motion to dismiss filed approximately a 25 week prior to the instant motion that the allegations set forth in plaintiff’s first amended 26 complaint are sufficient to withstand 12(b)(6) dismissal. (ECF No. 19). In the instant motion, 27 however, plaintiff fails to set forth any changes or developments occurring since her first 28 amended complaint or her response that would otherwise explain the removal of Gomez. 2 1 Plaintiff merely asserts that more evidentiary support is needed to support the allegations as to 2 Gomez (ECF No. 26 at 3) and that she “reserves the right to amendment to add [Gomez] back in 3 as a party after further discovery” (ECF No. 21 at 3). Notably, proof of service was due by February 16, 2017, and to date, plaintiff has yet to 4 5 file proof of service as to Gomez. In light of the foregoing, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to amend. Further, 6 7 because of plaintiff’s admissions in the instant motion, plaintiff shall file proof of service or a 8 notice of voluntary dismissal as to Gomez within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. 9 IV. Conclusion 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to 12 13 14 15 amend (ECF No. 21) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file proof of service or a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Gomez within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. DATED THIS 28th day of February, 2017. 16 17 JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?