WILSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 1/31/17. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
(Doc. No. 8, 14)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Civil No. 16-7915 (RBK/JS)
KUGLER, United State District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Melanie Wilson (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion
to Amend (Doc. No. 14). Plaintiff specifically seeks to amend Counts III and IV of her complaint
from claims under the Family Leave Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law to claims
pursuant to the New Jersey Family Leave Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. For the
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendants Bayside State Prison,
State of New Jersey, and New Jersey Department of Corrections’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff alleges significant workplace harassment in retaliation for her participation in a
sexual harassment investigation and subsequent complaints regarding her own workplace
harassment. Plaintiff filed her original complaint in New Jersey Superior Court in Cumberland
County on September 1, 2016. (Doc. No. 1). Defendants removed the case to federal court on
October 27, 2016. Defendants Bayside State Prison, State of New Jersey, and New Jersey
Department of Corrections moved to dismiss Counts III and IV of the Complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction on December 21, 2016. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend on
January 19, 2017.
A plaintiff may amend their complaint after a responsive pleading has been filed “only
with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The
court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. As the Supreme Court has explained,
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 amendment, etc.—the leave
sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The Court finds that leave to amend is proper. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is
unopposed. The Court sees no indication that Plaintiff’s motion to amend will cause undue delay
at this point in the litigation, is motivated by bad faith or a desire to delay the proceedings, will
cause undue prejudice to defendants, or will be futile.
Defendants Bayside State Prison, State of New Jersey, and New Jersey Department of
Corrections filed a motion to dismiss Counts III and IV of the original complaint. Because the
original version of a Complaint is superseded by any amended version, Snyder v. Pascack Valley
Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002), and Defendants’ motion was directed at Plaintiff’s
original Complaint, Defendants’ motion is moot. Thus, the Court denies the Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss without prejudice.
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
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?