Sharkozy v. Terra-Gen Operating Company, Inc. et al
Filing
44
ORDER granting ECF No. 36 Motion to Amend Complaint : Amended Complaint deadline: 5/1/2017. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 4/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MARK SHARKOZY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
TERRA-GEN OPERATING COMPANY,
)
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )
3:16-cv-00592-HDM-WGC
ORDER
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his
16
complaint.
17
plaintiff replied (ECF No. 42).
(ECF No. 36).
Defendants responded (ECF No. 41) and
18
Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be “freely” given
19
“when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In determining
20
whether to grant leave to amend, a court considers the following
21
factors: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing
22
party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has
23
previously amended the complaint.
24
1077 (9th Cir. 2004).
25
motion for leave to amend.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th
26
Cir. 2004).
27
28
Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067,
“Futility alone can justify the denial of a
Granting leave to amend is futile when an added claim would be
barred by the statute of limitations.
1
Deutsch v. Turner Corp., 324
1
F.3d 692, 718 n.20 (9th Cir. 2003).
2
timely filed if they relate back to the original pleadings under Rule
3
15(c).
4
provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back”
5
or the amendment asserts a claim “that arose out of the conduct,
6
transaction, or occurrence set out–or attempted to be set out–in the
7
original pleading.”
8
out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence if they ‘share a
9
common core of operative facts’ such that plaintiff will rely on the
Newly added claims, however, are
The rule provides for relation back when either “the law that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(A)-(B).
“Claims arise
10
same evidence to prove each claim.”
11
1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d
12
322, 325–26 (9th Cir. 1989)).
13
proper if the original pleading put the defendant on notice of the
14
‘particular transaction or set of facts’ that the plaintiff believes
15
to have caused the complained of injury.” Percy v. San Francisco Gen.
16
Hosp., 841 F.2d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Santana v. Holiday
17
Inns, Inc., 686 F.2d 736, 738–39 (9th Cir. 1982)).
18
Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d
Thus, “amendment of a complaint is
Plaintiff was discharged by his employer on November 24, 2014.
19
(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 20).
20
2016, alleged the following causes of action: (1) wrongful termination
21
under the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA); (2) violation
22
of the Rehabilitation Act; and (3) retaliation under the ADA.
23
Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint by adding a claim for
24
tortious discharge for filing workers’ compensation claims. (ECF No.
25
36-1 at ¶¶ 20, 47–51).
Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed March 17,
(Id.).
26
In Nevada, “retaliatory discharge by an employer stemming from
27
the filing of a workmen’s compensation claim by an injured [at-will]
28
employee is actionable in tort.” Hansen v. Harrah’s, 100 Nev. 60, 64,
2
1
675 P.2d 394, 397 (1984).
2
statute of limitations period on such a claim.
3
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fitts, 120 Nev. 707, 709, 99 P.3d
4
1160, 1161 (2004).
5
cv-00004-LRH-VPC, 2014 WL 1877431, at *2 (D. Nev. May 9,2014).
6
Defendants
7
plaintiff’s tortious discharge claim and that this claim relies on
8
different facts than those alleged in plaintiff’s original complaint.
9
(ECF No. 41 at 3). Defendants argue that the new claim therefore does
10
assert
Under Nevada law, there is a two-year
See NRS 11.190(4)(e);
See also Scott v. Corizon Health, Inc., No. 3:14-
that
the
statute
of
limitations
has
run
on
not relate back and that amendment would be futile.
11
In plaintiff’s original complaint he referenced the filing of the
12
workers’ compensation claim when he stated: “At all relevant times,
13
Plaintiff fully, adequately and completely performed all functions,
14
duties and responsibilities of his employment with Plaintiff until he
15
became
16
compensation claim.”
17
court
18
compensation claim in the context of his termination is sufficient to
19
state a claim for tortious discharge.
20
discharge claim relates back to the filing of the original complaint.
21
As such, the amendment would not be futile.
22
motion to amend (ECF No. 36) is granted.
23
amended complaint on or before May 1, 2017.
injured
concludes
while
on
the
job.
Plaintiff
(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 18).
that
plaintiff’s
to
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
workers’
Plaintiff shall file his
26
28
his
Accordingly, plaintiff’s
DATED: This 24th day of April, 2017.
27
workers’
Therefore, the tortious
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
a
Liberally construed, the
reference
24
filed
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?