CONNORS v. JIM SHORKEY FAMILY AUTO GROUP
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the Order filed herewith, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 17 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff may amend her complaint for the limited purpose of addin g PHRA claims, asserting such claims against the individual defendant Jim Shorkey III, and amending the caption to correct the company Defendant's name. The Court, however, will not permit Plaintiff to amend her Complaint "in response to D efendant's latest Motion to dismiss." Plaintiff shall have until 12/7/17 to file her Second Amended Complaint. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond 14 days thereafter. In light of today's ruling, Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14 ) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 12/4/17. (kg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JIM SHORKEY FAMILY AUTO GROUP, )
Civil Action No. 17-1003
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (Doc. 17). Plaintiff previously exercised her right
to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (Doc.
11). Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend the complaint for a second time: (1) to add PHRA
claims; (2) to assert PHRA claims against individual Defendant Jim Shorkey III; (3) to amend
the caption to correct the company Defendant’s name; and (4) to respond to Defendant’s pending
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17 ¶ 7). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion will be
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the proposed
Second Amended Complaint to her Motion for Leave. As the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit repeatedly has held, “the failure to submit a draft amended complaint ‘is fatal to a request
for leave to amend.’” McWreath v. Range Res.-Appalachia, LLC, 645 Fed.Appx. 190, 196 (3d
Cir. 2016)) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Zizic v. Q2Administrators, LLC, 728 F.3d 228, 243 (3d Cir.
2013). Nevertheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint for the limited
purpose of adding PHRA claims, asserting such claims against the individual defendant Jim
Shorkey III, and amending the caption to correct the current Defendant’s name.
The Court, however, will not permit Plaintiff to amend her Complaint “in response to
Defendant’s latest Motion to dismiss.” (Doc. 17 ¶ 7). Plaintiff already has had the opportunity
to amend her complaint to respond to Defendant’s arguments in its initial motion to dismiss.
(Doc. 11). Furthermore, the Court’s August 1, 2017 Order 1 requires the parties to meet and
confer prior to filing any motions to dismiss (Doc. 2), and counsel for Defendant twice certified
that he in fact “made good faith efforts to confer with [Plaintiff’s] counsel . . . to determine
whether the identified pleading deficiencies . . . may be cured by amendment.” (Docs. 8 and 14).
Thus, Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to amend her complaint, both before and after
Defendant filed its motions to dismiss, to cure any pleading deficiencies, and has not provided
the Court with any reason why she should be given another bite at the apple. See Taylor v.
Pilewski, 2008 WL 4861446, *3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2008) (“[the c]ourt need not provide endless
opportunities” for amendment, especially where such opportunity already has been enjoyed).
Plaintiff shall have until December 7, 2017 to file her Second Amended Complaint.
Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond fourteen (14) days thereafter. In light of today’s
ruling, Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 4, 2017
United States District Judge
Indeed, the very purpose of the Court’s Order is to avoid the situation we have before us.
cc (via ECF email notification):
All counsel of record
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?