Davis v. C&D Security Management, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUBSTITUTED AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 4/27/21. 4/27/21 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO COUNSEL; E-MAILED.(amas, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOPE DAVIS, On Behalf of Herself and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a
Allied Universal Security Services, LLC
MEMORANDUM RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
“SUBSTITUTED AMENDED COMPLAINT”
Hope Davis (“Plaintiff”) twice applied to C&D Security Management, Inc. d/b/a “Allied
Universal” and Universal Protection Services, LLC, d/b/a “Allied Universal” (collectively
“Defendant” or “Allied”) for employment as a security guard. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by denying Plaintiff
employment opportunities based on the results of her consumer report without first providing her
notice or a copy of the report. Plaintiff seeks relief under the FCRA on behalf of herself and others
who are similarly situated. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a
Substituted Amended Complaint. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied
Factual and Procedural Background
The Court has previously written on the factual background of this case. See generally
Davis v. C&D Sec. Mgmt., Inc., No. 20-cv-1758, 2020 WL 4284379, *1–2 (E.D. Pa. July 27,
2020) (Baylson, J.). For purposes of the present Motion, the relevant procedural facts are as
The parties agreed on a pretrial schedule for discovery. (ECF 27.) Plaintiff then filed a
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF 33), which she later withdrew (ECF 82).
Contemporaneously with the withdrawal, as of April 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave
to File a “Substituted Amended Complaint.” (ECF 83.) Plaintiff made these filings after the
completion of discovery, and in the middle of briefing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment which had been filed on March 12, 2021 (ECF 68). In the briefings for the Motions on
the Complaint, Plaintiff vaguely refers to factual inaccuracies in the original Complaint and asserts
the need to correct them.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow for the filing of a “Substituted Amended
Complaint.” Rule 15 provides the proper vehicle for filing amended and supplemental pleadings.
It appears Plaintiff wishes to correct inaccuracies in her pleadings. In correcting inaccuracies, the
Court will rely on the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) which requires a party to “state with
particularity the circumstances constituting . . . mistake”, in seeking relief.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a “Substituted Amended Complaint” will be denied
without prejudice to file a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Supplemental Complaint
(“SASC”), pursuant to Rules 15 and 9(b), stating with particularity the reasons for the need to do
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Substituted Amended
Complaint will be DENIED. The parties shall adhere to the accompanying Order regarding
deadlines and details for the briefing on the SASC. All of the proceedings including the Motion
to Certify Class will be STAYED.
O:\CIVIL 20\20-1758 Davis v. Allied\20cv1758 memorandum re mot for leave to file sub am compl.docx
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?