Jung v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Dkt. #17) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/29/2018. (daj, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SUSAN JUNG
v.
24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-787
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Susan Jung’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint (Dkt. #17). After reviewing the relevant pleadings and motion, the Court finds the
motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
(Dkt. #17). Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. #16) seeks to destroy diversity by adding Zach
Turner (“Turner”), a Texas citizen, as a defendant. Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (“24
Hour Fitness”) filed its response (Dkt. #20) on January 11, 2018.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend its
pleading once without seeking leave of court or the consent of the adverse party at any time before
a responsive pleading is served. After a responsive pleading is served, a party “may amend only
with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Courts are
instructed to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). The rule “evinces
a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.” Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987,
994 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th
Cir. 2002)). But leave to amend “is not automatic.” Matagorda Ventures, Inc. v. Travelers Lloyds
Ins. Co., 203 F. Supp. 2d 704, 718 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (citing Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660
F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 1981)). Whether to allow amendment “lies within the sound discretion of
the district court.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 952 F.2d 841, 845–46 (5th Cir. 1992).
A district court, “when faced with an amended pleading naming a new non[-]diverse
defendant in a removed case, should scrutinize that amendment more closely than an ordinary
amendment.” Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182 (5th Cir. 1987). In determining
whether to permit such an amendment, the Court considers four factors: (1) “the extent to which
the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction;” (2) “whether [the] plaintiff has
been dilatory in asking for amendment;” (3) whether [the] plaintiff will be significantly injured if
amendment is not allowed;” and (4) “any other factors bearing on the equities.” Id. “If [the Court]
permits the amendment of the non[-]diverse defendant, [the Court] then must remand to the state
court. If the amendment is not allowed, the [Court] maintains jurisdiction.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues adding Turner as a defendant is necessary because “should it be determined
that any of Zach Turner’s actions were outside the scope of his employment, some or all of
Plaintiff’s recovery could be limited to recovery against Zach Turner.” (Dkt. #17 at ¶ 5). 24 Hour
Fitness responds by “stipulate[ing] that Zach Turner was acting within the course and scope of his
employment in connection with the conduct of which Plaintiff complains.” (Dkt. #20 at pp. 1–2).
As such, 24 Hour Fitness contends that such stipulation “eliminates Plaintiff’s sole basis for
seeking to join Zach Turner.” (Dkt. #20 at p. 2). The Court agrees.
Plaintiff’s basis for adding Turner is contingent on whether Turner acted within the course
and scope of his employment with 24 Hour Fitness. Because 24 Hour Fitness, in its response,
2
stipulates that Turner acted within the course and scope of his employment, Plaintiff’s basis for
adding Turner is eliminated. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for leave should be
1
. denied.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
(Dkt. #17) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 29th day of January, 2018.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Although the Fifth Circuit provides four factors to weigh when faced with an amended pleading naming a new
non-diverse defendant, the Court finds an analysis of such factors is unnecessary given Plaintiff’s basis for moving
for leave is rendered meritless after 24 Hour Fitness’s stipulation. Further, in arguing such factors, Plaintiff provides
nothing more than two conclusory statements claiming that the factors weigh in favor of Plaintiff.
3
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?