Wang v. Nevada System of Higher Education

Filing 19

ORDER that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 6 and Motion to Strike ECF No. 15 are denied; Plaintiff's Motion to Amend ECF No. 12 and Plaintiff's Motion to Add a Pleading ECF No. 16 are granted. Plaintiff to file First Amended Complaint with exhibits within 15 days. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/19/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

GUANGYU WANG,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00075-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
12

NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

13
14
15

I.

SUMMARY

16

Before the Court are four motions: Defendant Nevada System of Higher Education

17

on behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine’s (“UNR Med”) Motion to

18

Dismiss (ECF No. 6); Plaintiff Guangyu Wang’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 12);

19

Defendant’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 15); and Plaintiff’s Motion to Add a Pleading to

20

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to LR 15-1 (“Motion to Add a Pleading”) (ECF No.

21

16). For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions and denies Defendant’s

22

motions as moot.

23

II.

BACKGROUND

24

This is a Title VII retaliation case. Plaintiff worked for UNR Med and was terminated.

25

(ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against UNR Med regarding his

26

discharge, and the parties reached a settlement. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after the

27

settlement, the head of the UNR Med department in which Plaintiff worked retaliated

28

///

1

against Plaintiff for filing the charge of discrimination by providing an unfavorable

2

reference to Plaintiff’s future employer. (Id.)

3

III.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND (ECF NO. 12)

4

Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint in order to add compensatory damages to

5

his requests for relief. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter

6

of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 15(a)(1)(b). Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend on April 3, 2018, eighteen days after

8

Defendant served its Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on March 15, 2018.

9

(ECF Nos. 6, 12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend will be granted as a matter of

10

course.1

11

IV.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD A PLEADING (ECF NO. 16)

12

Plaintiff filed his Motion to Add a Pleading on April 16, 2018, more than twenty-one

13

days after service of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on March 15, 2018. (ECF Nos. 6, 16.)

14

In these circumstances, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s

15

written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give

16

leave when justice so requires.” Id. “The decision of whether to grant leave to amend

17

nevertheless remains within the discretion of the district court, which may deny leave to

18

amend due to ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated

19

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

20

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’”

21

Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Foman v.

22

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). However, “[u]ndue delay by itself is insufficient to justify

23

denying leave to amend.” United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161,

24

1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712–

25

13 (9th Cir. 2001)).

26

///

27

///

28

1Defendant

does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 18.)
2

1

Plaintiff seeks to augment his proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with

2

exhibits related to grant awards he received. (See ECF No. 16 at 1-2.) Because Plaintiff

3

may amend his complaint, the Court finds that no undue prejudice would result from

4

allowing Plaintiff to add exhibits to his complaint. In addition, the record before the Court

5

does not reflect undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or failure to cure deficiencies on

6

the part of the movant. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Add a

7

Pleading.

8

V.

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 6, 15)

9

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot given Plaintiff’s intent to file

10

an amended complaint. Defendant’s Motion to Strike will also be denied as moot, though

11

Plaintiff is advised that “[s]urreplies are not permitted without leave of court.” LR 7-2(b).

12

VI.

CONCLUSION

13

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

14

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

15

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before

16

the Court.

17

It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is denied.

18

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 12) is granted.

19

It is further ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 15) is denied.

20

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Add a Pleading (ECF No. 16) is granted.

21

Plaintiff is instructed to file a First Amended Complaint that includes the exhibits he

22

requested to add within fifteen (15) days.

23

DATED THIS 19th day of April 2018.

24
25
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
3