Williams v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting Daimler's 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 10 Answer to Complaint Notice of Removal. The Clerk is directed to separately docket the amended answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/28/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Breanne J. Williams,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Alfredo Valencia Rodriguez and
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 0:17-1063-TLW-SVH

ORDER

In this employment discrimination case, Breanne J. Williams (“Plaintiff”) sues her
former employer Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (“Daimler”) and one of its
employees, Alfredo Valencia Rodriguez (“Valencia”), based on her termination from
employment by Daimler and alleged assault and battery by Valencia. All pretrial
proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.).
This matter comes before the court on Daimler’s motion to amend its answer.
[ECF No. 36]. The motion having been fully briefed [ECF Nos. 37, 38], it is ripe for
disposition. Daimler seeks to amend its answer to include additional affirmative defenses
and correct scrivener’s errors. [ECF Nos. 36, 36-1]. Plaintiff argues Daimler’s motion
should be denied because the affirmative defenses were not raised in the initial answer.
[ECF No. 37]. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a party may amend a pleading with
leave of court and “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” “A
motion to amend should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the

opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the
amendment would be futile.” HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Daimler moved to amend within the deadline under
the scheduling order and Plaintiff has not made a showing that the amendment would be
prejudicial, was made in bad faith, or is futile. Therefore, Daimler’s motion to amend is
granted. The Clerk is directed to separately docket the amended answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 28, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2