Hoffman v. Family Dollars Stores, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER re 8 Addendum, Plaintiff is hereby directed to submit a complete amended complaint, incorporating all allegations found in the original complaint and the Addendum, within seven (7) days of this Courts order, on or before January 19, 2015. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 01/12/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00664-FDW-DCK
ARTHEA HOFFMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF NORTH )
CAROLINA, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

ORDER & NOTICE

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte after Plaintiff’s filing of Document 8
entitled “Addendum.”

Although Plaintiff has captioned this document an “Amended

Complaint,” Defendant has not incorporated by reference the allegations contained in his original
complaint. (Doc. No. 1). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court has liberally construed
the “Addendum” as a motion to amend the complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applies to the amendment of pleadings and allows a
party to amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving, or “if the pleading is one
to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21
days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1). Rule 15 further provides:
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only
with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Under Rule 15, a “motion to amend should be denied only where it would be prejudicial,
there has been bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.” Nourison Rug Corporation v.

Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276-77
(4th Cir. 2001); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, “the grant or
denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court.” Pittston Co. v.
U.S., 199 F.3d 694, 705 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
The undersigned is not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence of prejudice, bad faith,
or futility to outweigh the policy favoring granting leave to amend. After careful consideration
of the record and the motions, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s motion to amend is
GRANTED. As such, both of Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 3, 11) are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
Plaintiff is hereby directed to submit a complete amended complaint, incorporating all
allegations found in the original complaint and the “Addendum,” within seven (7) days of
this Court’s order, on or before January 19, 2015. If Defendant wishes to re-file its Motion to
Dismiss, it may do so within seven (7) days after Plaintiff files his Amended Complaint.
The Clerk is respectfully directed to send a copy of this Notice to Plaintiff at 5851
Reddman Road, Apt. 13, Charlotte, NC 28212, at to counsel for the Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 12, 2015