Doe et al v. Jackson Local School District Board of Education et al

Filing 46

Memorandum Opinion granting plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint, instanter. (Doc. No. 37 .) The joint motion to extend expert discovery and dispositive motion deadlines (Doc. No. 45 ) is granted. The parties shall hav e leave until August 23, 2018 to complete expert discovery. Dispositive motions shall be due by August 30, 2018, with responses due by September 28, 2018, and any replies must be filed no later than October 10, 2018. Judge Sara Lioi on 7/26/2018. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JANE DOE, et al.,

PLAINTIFFS,
vs.
JACKSON LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT/BOARD OF EDUCATION, et
al,
DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:17-cv-1931

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint,
instanter. (Doc. No. 37 [“Mot. Amend”].) The motion is unopposed. For the reasons that follow,
the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs brought this action in state court against defendants on August 15, 2017,
seeking damages against defendants for injuries plaintiff Minor Doe, a student of the Jackson
School District, sustained when she was allegedly assaulted by another student while riding on a
school bus. (Doc. No. 1-2 (Complaint [“Compl.”]) ¶ 17.) On September 13, 2017, defendants
removed the action to federal court. (Doc. No. 1 (Notice of Removal).)
The original complaint contained one federal civil rights claim brought under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, as well as four claims brought under Ohio statutory and common law. On January 35,
2018, the Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to file a first amended complaint for the
sole purpose of identifying by name the previously unknown bus driver, Jimmie Singleton. (Doc.
No. 22.)

Plaintiffs now seek to further amend their pleadings to add two additional defendants, six
claims, and numerous factual allegations. According to plaintiffs, the amendments are necessary
in order “to assert claims which conform to the evidence discovered recently through
depositions.” (Mot. at 237.) Plaintiffs explain that they did not have access to the information
that forms the basis for their amendments because responses to their written discovery were
delayed and they did not otherwise obtain the information until the recent deposition of seven
individuals. (Id.) Defendants have failed to file a response to the motion, and the time for
registering an opposition has passed.
After a responsive pleading is filed, the complaining party may amend the pleadings only
with the opposing party’s written consent or by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 1 “The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The decision whether to permit the
amendment is committed to the discretion of the trial court. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-32, 91 S. Ct. 795, 28 L. Ed. 2d 77 (1971) (citation omitted);
Estes v. Ky. Util., 636 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir. 1980). The trial court’s discretion, however, is
“limited by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)’s liberal policy of permitting amendments to ensure the
determination of claims on the merits.” Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir. 1987)
(citation omitted).
“Leave to amend may be denied when it would result in undue delay, prejudice to the
opposing party, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the complaint.” Phelps v. McClellan,
30 F.3d 658, 662 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L.

The addition of new parties is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, which provides: “On motion or on its own, the court
may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”
1

2

Ed. 2d 222 (1962); Duchon v. Cajon Co., 791 F.2d 43, 48 (6th Cir. 1986)). When a party has
delayed in seeking amendment, the court weighs the cause shown for the delay against the
resulting prejudice to the opposing party. Head v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 486 F.2d 870, 873
(6th Cir. 1973). “In determining what constitutes prejudice, the court considers whether the
assertion of the new claim or defense would: require the opponent to expend significant
additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; significantly delay the resolution
of the dispute; or prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another jurisdiction.”
Phelps, 30 F.3d at 662-63 (citation omitted). The longer the period of unexplained delay, the less
prejudice the adverse party will be required to show to defeat the motion. Id. at 662 (citation
omitted).
The Court finds no evidence of significant prejudice to the opposing parties, a likelihood
of substantial delay in the proceedings, or a repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the pleadings.
While some adjustment of the dates and deadlines in this case may be necessary, the case is still
in its early stages, and the Court does not anticipate that the adjustment to the dates in its trial
schedule will be drastic.2 Finally, the present motion represents only plaintiffs’ second request to
amend, and the first request was limited to identifying one of the defendants by name. As such,
plaintiffs have not demonstrated a repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the pleadings.

2

The parties have filed a joint motion to extend the expert discovery and dispositive motions deadlines by thirty
30day to account for plaintiffs’ request to further amend the complaint and the fact that they have yet to complete
expert discovery. (Doc. No. 45.) Neither request interferes with the trial in this matter, which is currently scheduled
for January 28, 2019 on a two week standby basis. The joint motion is GRANTED. The parties shall have leave until
August 23, 2018 to complete expert discovery. Dispositive motions shall be due by August 30, 2018, with responses
due by September 28, 2018, and any replies must be filed no later than October 10, 2018.
3

In light of the mandate of Rule 15(a) that leave should be “freely” given, the Court rules
that “justice so requires” that the motion to amend be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The
Court, therefore, GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint, instanter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2018
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4