Connatser et al v. UT-Battelle, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 12/04/2013. (KAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
PHYLLIS CONNATSER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UT-BATTELLE, LLC, and
DEBBIE OTTAWAY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-CV-418
(COLLIER/SHIRLEY)

ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint
[Doc. 19], filed on November 4, 2013.
The motion states that the Plaintiff seeks to submit a Second Amended Complaint [Doc.
20-1] which alleges the facts and circumstances of her claim against the Defendants more
clearly. The Plaintiff has attached her proposed Second Amended Complaint in compliance with
Local Rule 15.11 and argues that justice requires that the amendment be accepted.

The

Defendants filed a response [Doc. 21] opposing the Plaintiff’s motion. The Defendants maintain
that the Plaintiff failed to identify how her proposed Second Amended Complaint corrects any
deficiencies identified in the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 3] which is currently pending
before the District Court. The Defendants also submit that the Plaintiff has already amended her
Complaint once, alleging to have resolved any deficiencies, and that allowing the Plaintiff to
1

Local Rule 15.1 provides that “[a] party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach a copy of the proposed
amended pleading to the motion.” In addition, the Rule states that the party must file the “entire pleading as
amended and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” E.D.T.N. LR 15.1.

amend her Complaint for the second time would allow the Plaintiff “a third bite at the apple.”
The Plaintiff filed a reply [Doc. 22] submitting that her proposed Second Amended Complaint is
not futile or prejudicial to the Defendants, but rather provides a more detailed account of the
facts of her case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that a court should freely give leave to
amend when justice so requires. Under this rule, “[a] motion to amend a complaint should be
denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or
prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.” Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th
Cir. 1995). The purpose of the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is to provide a more
detailed account of the facts. The Court finds that the Defendant will not be prejudiced by the
additional factual allegations and that justice so requires an amendment to clarify the Plaintiff’s
claims. Moreover, the Court notes that allowing the Plaintiff to amend her Complaint will not
further delay the proceedings as the parties have not engaged in discovery, as submitted in the
Defendants’ response.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) and because the Defendant has not been
prejudiced nor will a delay result in the proceedings, the Court finds the Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Amend Complaint [Doc. 19] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2