Duran v. County of Clinton et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting Duran's motion for leave to file amended complaint 47 , directing Clrk of Ct to FILE 2nd amended complaint submitted w/ motion 48 1-29, & denying defts' MSJ 29 & parties respective MILs 37 & 42 w/out prejudice to refiling upon completion of further proceedings in this matter. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/24/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS V. DURAN,
Plaintiff
v.
COUNTY OF CLINTON, JEFFREY
SNYDER, ROBERT SMELTZ, and
JOEL LONG,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-2047
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2017, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 47) filed by plaintiff Thomas V. Duran (“Duran”) for leave to file an amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Duran’s brief
(Doc. 48) in support thereof, wherein Duran asserts that amendment is necessary to
add claims arising out of the operative circumstances described in his first amended
complaint (Doc. 11) because of his recent receipt of a right to sue letter which the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued on March 3, 2017
regarding claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§
621 et seq., and Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., (Doc. 48 at
1), and further upon consideration of defendants’ opposition, (Doc. 49), wherein
defendants suggest that the interests of justice warrant denial of Duran’s motion,
(id. at 10-14), and the court observing that Rule 15(a)(2) directs the court to “freely
give leave when justice so requires,” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2), that the decision
whether to grant leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the district

court, see Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1413 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Bechtel v.
Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 647 (3d Cir. 1989)), and that courts generally grant leave to
amend unless an opposing party demonstrates undue delay, bad faith on the part of
the movant, or prejudice to the non-moving party, see Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434
F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962);
Combined Ins. Co of Am. v. Bastian, No. 09-CV-111, 2009 WL 5111794, at *1 (M.D.
Pa. Dec. 17, 2009), and, following a review of the proposed amended pleading, (Doc.
48-1 at 1-29), and upon examining defendants’ assertions with respect to undue
delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility, (Doc. 49 at 10-14), the court
finding that the EEOC’s recent issuance of a right to sue letter on March 3, 2017
perforce precipitated Duran’s motion for leave to amend, thus justifying the delay in
his instant request, (id. at 6-7); see also Tlush v. Mfrs. Res. Ctr., 315 F. Supp. 2d 650,
654 (E.D. Pa. 2002), and it appearing that Duran would be entitled to file a new civil
action asserting the claims contemplated by the right to sue letter, (see Doc. 50 at 12), and the court concluding that the interest of justice favors granting leave to
amend under the circumstances, it is hereby ORDERED that:

2

1.

Duran’s motion (Doc. 47) for leave to file an amended complaint is
GRANTED.

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to FILE the second amended complaint
(Doc. 48-1 at 1-29) submitted with Duran’s motion to the docket in the
above-captioned matter.

3.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) and the parties'
respective motions (Docs. 37, 42) in limine are DENIED without
prejudice to refilling upon the completion of further pleadings in this
matter.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania