Pendleton v. Prairie View A&M University

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 36 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DR. ALICE M. PENDLETON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

November 21, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-736

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Prairie View A&M University’s Motion for Leave
to File Amended Answer (Doc. No. 36). After considering the Motion, the responses thereto, and
all applicable law, the Court determines that the Motion should be denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Alice Pendleton brings claims for disability discrimination and gender

discrimination against Defendant Prairie View A&M University. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff filed her
First Amended Complaint on May 20, 2015. Id. On December 9, 2015, the Court granted leave
for Defendant to file its Original Answer. (Doc. No. 26.) Discovery closed on September 30,
2016, and trial is scheduled to begin on January 9, 2017.
Defendant filed the instant Motion on October 6, 2016. Defendant seeks leave to amend
its Answer to include additional affirmative defenses: judicial estoppel, statute of limitations,
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, undue burden as to Plaintiff’s claim regarding
Defendant’s alleged failure to accommodate, and that Defendant had legitimate, nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for any alleged adverse employment actions. (Doc.
No. 36 at 1.)

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a court should freely give leave to

amend a pleading when justice so requires. “[U]nless there is a substantial reason to deny leave
to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial.” Dussouy v.
Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 592, 598 (5th Cir. 1981). A court may deny leave to amend upon
a finding of “undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party, [or] futility of amendment.” Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602, 608 (5th Cir.
1998).
III.

ANALYSIS
Defendant’s proposed amended answer, which arrives after the close of discovery, raises

several additional affirmative defenses. Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced by having to
respond to these affirmative defenses without the benefit of discovery on those issues. Defendant
argues that because its affirmative defenses—particularly the defenses of undue hardship and
legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons—go to the core issues of Plaintiff’s
case, there is no need for further discovery. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff has indicated that in
order to respond to Defendant’s additional affirmative defenses, she would need to re-depose
witnesses and propound additional written discovery. She would also need to consider adding
new fact witnesses and/or retaining an expert. Due to the advanced stage of the litigation, and
with trial set in six weeks, Plaintiff would be foreclosed from taking any of these steps. As such,
Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced by Defendant’s late amendment to its answer.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Prairie View A&M University’s Motion for

2

Leave to File Amended Answer (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED. Parties should be prepared for trial
on January 9, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the 21st day of November, 2016.

HON. KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3