Wall v. Enterprise Holding Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 31 motion to amend, directing the Clerk of Court to substitute Enterprise Leasing Company-Southeast, LLC as the proper defendant, and directing counsel for Enterprise Leasing to advise the court by October 25, 2018, via a short filing on the docket whether they are authorized to accept service on behalf of Enterprise Leasing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 10/15/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kanisha Anne Shani Wall,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Enterprise Holding, Inc.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:18-1225-TLW-SVH

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the motion of Kanisha Anne
Shani Wall (“Plaintiff”) to amend her complaint [ECF No. 31] and
Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECf No. 19]. The motions having been fully
briefed [ECF Nos. 23, 30, 32, 34], they are ripe for disposition.
I.

Motion to Amend
In the body of her proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff requests the

court to accept her “amendment to Jurisdiction and venue number (5).” [ECF
No. 31]. Paragraph number five of the proposed amended complaint
acknowledges that Defendant attached an affidavit indicating she served
Defendant at an incorrect address. Id.; see also ECF No. 19-1. The affidavit is
signed by Michelle Robson, Group Risk Manager for Enterprise Leasing
Company—Southeast, LLC (“Enterprise Leasing”) and states there is no such
entity as Enterprise Holdings, Inc., but that Enterprise Leasing is the correct
party. [ECF No. 19-1 at ¶¶ 1–4]. She also provides the correct address for

Enterprise Leasing’s registered agent. Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff’s proposed
amended complaint acknowledges the address provided in Robson’s affidavit,
but does not change the name of Defendant.
“[L]eave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a). “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); see also Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1152-53 (4th Cir.
1978) (a pro se litigant is entitled to the opportunity to amend his pleadings if
he has alleged a potentially meritorious cause of action).
Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is futile because she has not corrected
the name of the defendant and her acknowledgment of the correct address
does not cure her failure to effect service. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to
amend is denied. However, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute
Enterprise Leasing Company—Southeast, LLC, as the proper defendant in
this action.
II.

Service of Process
Enterprise Leasing filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint based

on failure to properly perfect service of process. [ECF No. 19]. Plaintiff has
not properly served Enterprise Leasing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
2

However, Rule 4(m) also states that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure to properly serve a defendant, the court should extend by an
appropriate amount the time for service. Plaintiff immediately attempted to
serve the defendant upon being issued a summons, although she ultimately
did not perfect service pursuant to Rule 4’s requirements, as the named
defendant is incorrect and the documents were not mailed to the correct
address for the proper party.
Counsel for Enterprise Leasing is directed to advise the court by
October 25, 2018, via a short filing on the docket whether they are authorized
to accept service on behalf of Enterprise Leasing. If counsel is not authorized
to accept service, the undersigned plans to extend Plaintiff’s deadline for
perfecting service of process. If counsel is authorized to accept service,
Enterprise Leasing’s motion to dismiss will be rendered moot and it will have
21 days to answer or otherwise plead.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 15, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3