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)

Download PDF
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

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?