Norris v. Glassdoor, Inc.

Filing 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER: Magistrate Judge grants 17 Motion to Amend, RECOMMENDS denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss. Objections to R&R due by 3/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 2/16/2018. (ew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

STACY NORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-791
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson

GLASSDOOR, INC.,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint Instanter. (Doc. 17). For the reasons that follow, that Motion is GRANTED. It is
also RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) be DENIED AS MOOT.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on September 6, 2017, alleging a violation of the Uniformed

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, of 1994 (“USERRA”) and breach of
contract against Defendant, her former employer. (Doc. 1). Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed a
Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which was
briefed and is ripe for review. (Doc. 4). The Court then entered a scheduling order in November
2017, ordering, inter alia, that “[a]ny motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties
[] be filed by December 29, 2017. (Doc. 11).
On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Motion at issue, seeking to add “a
discrimination claim under USERRA and a fraud claim.” (Doc. 17). Plaintiff avers that “[t]he

fraud claim arises out of the same set of circumstances as the breach of contract claim.” (Id. at
3). Defendant opposed the Motion (Doc. 19), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 22). Thus, this
matter is ripe for resolution.
II.

STANDARD
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party seeks

leave of court to file an amended pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.”

This rule, which allows a liberal policy in favor of granting amendments,

“reinforce[s] the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities
of pleadings.’” Inge v. Rock Finan. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 936 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v.
City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)).

Thus, the trial court enjoys broad

discretion in deciding motions for leave to amend. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916
F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such
factors as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failures to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
III.

DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied because amendment would be

futile, as the USERRA, breach of contract, and fraud claims fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. (Doc. 19). Indeed, Defendant’s Opposition presents extensive arguments
for why it believes Plaintiff’s claim would not survive a motion to dismiss. (Id. at 6–13). While
Defendant is correct that the Court should consider potential futility, it is important to remember
that Plaintiff was within the timeframe set by this Court for amendment. Accordingly, at this

2

early stage of the litigation, the Court is charged with determining simply whether the futility of
an amendment is so obvious that it should be disallowed.” Bear v. Delaware Cnty., Ohio, No.
2:14-CV-43, 2015 WL 1954451, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2015). The amended complaint here
meets this low bar. “[T]he Court believes that it’s the better exercise of discretion to permit the
amendment,” after which Defendant may raise the merits arguments presented in its Opposition
in a dispositive motion once the Amended Complaint is filed. Id. At that point, “the matter will
then be subject to proper consideration by the District Judge.” Id.
Further, the Court notes that there is no evidence of, nor does Defendant allege, any
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of Plaintiff. The Court also finds that at this
stage of the litigation, Defendant will not suffer any undue prejudice by virtue of allowing the
amendment. With these factors in mind, and in light of the federal policy in favor of liberal
amendment, the Court finds amendment is proper at this time.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For those reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Instanter (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Doc. 17-1 as the Amended
Complaint. In light of this procedural posture, it is also RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) be DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant, of course, may file another
motion for judgment on the pleadings if it so desires.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 16, 2018

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3