Thomas v. ARS-Fresno et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 59 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 2/23/18 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Jervis K. Thomas,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-006 TC

ARS-Fresno, LLC; American Retail Services
LLC; Shell Oil Company et al.,

Judge Tena Campbell
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jervis K. Thomas moves the Court for leave to join additional parties as
defendants and to file his Second Amended Complaint. 1 This matter is referred to the
undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) by Judge Campbell. 2 After considering
the parties’ memoranda, relevant case law and the history of this case the Court will DENY the
Motion to Amend.
BACKGROUND
This suit is an action brought Under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 3 and the Utah
Civil Rights Act. 4 The circumstances arise from events at a gas station located in Salt Lake City,
Utah on July 5, 2016. “Plaintiff, an Afro-American” 5 alleges he was discriminated against on

1

Docket no. 59.

2

Docket no. 32.

3

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.

4

Utah Code Ann. § 13-7-1 et seq.

5

Mtn p. 2, docket no. 59.

the basis of race when he was called derogatory names and attacked by an employee “with a
hammer and dog” 6 who chased him around the gas pumps and into the station.
The deadline to file a motion to amend in this case is August 30, 2017 for Plaintiff and
September 15, 2017 for Defendants. 7 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 31,
2017, 8 following an order by the Court permitting Plaintiff to amend. 9 The Scheduling Order set
forth the same deadlines for the parties to move to join additional parties, namely, August 30,
2017, for Plaintiff and September 15, 2017, for Defendants. 10
On December 6, 2017, Judge Campbell held a hearing in this case. 11 At the conclusion
of the hearing Judge Campbell granted Defendant Shell Oil Company’s Motion to Dismiss and
gave Plaintiff “three weeks in which to amend its complaint” and Defendants an opportunity to
respond. 12 The current dispute centers on the scope of Judge Campbell’s ruling. Plaintiff asserts
there were no restrictions upon its ability to amend while Defendants argue that ruling does not
permit the amendments Plaintiff seeks.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” 13 “The district court has ‘wide discretion to recognize a motion for leave to amend in
the interest of a just, fair or early resolution of litigation.’” 14 “Refusing leave to amend is
6

Id.

7

See Scheduling Order p. 3, docket no. 29.

8

Docket no. 35.

9

Docket no. 34.

10

See id.

11

Minute Order, docket no. 50.

12

Id.

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

14

Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Calderon v. Kan. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs.,
181 F.3d 1180, 1187 (10th Cir. 1999)).

2

generally only justified upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party,
bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or
futility of amendment.” 15
Here, Plaintiff seeks via its Amended Complaint to add the following: Equilon
Enterprises, LLC as a Defendant in place of Shell Oil; two other new Defendants, Howard Bode
and Andi Pirnat; and new claims against Defendant ARS. Plaintiff argues the proposed
amendment is within the scope of Judge Campbell’s ruling. Defendant ARS takes issue with
Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Court’s ruling. ARS agrees to the substitution of Equilon for
Shell Oil but opposes the two other new defendants, Bode and Pirnat, and the additional claims
made against it. In support ARS points to the Scheduling Order deadline of August 30, 2017, for
Plaintiff to add parties. That deadline was not extended by Judge Campbell and the hearing
before her only concerned Shell Oil’s motion to dismiss. In addition ARS has completed
discovery and filed dispositive motions. So, according to ARS, Re-opening discovery at this
point would be prejudicial, create further delay and undermine the effort extended in filing the
dispositive motions.
The Court agrees with ARS. A motion to amend may be denied upon a showing of
undue delay or undue prejudice. The deadline to add parties has passed and Judge Campbell did
not change that deadline at the hearing. Further, Plaintiff has failed to offer any reasonable
explanation for the delay. ARS has already filed dispositive motions that will be undermined by
Plaintiff’s amendments. Thus, the Court finds allowing additional claims at this stage of the case
will be prejudicial and waste resources extended by ARS in defending this case.

15

Id. (quoting Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)).

3

In addition, the hearing before Judge Campbell centered on Shell Oil’s Motion to Dismiss
that was granted. After Shell Oil was dismissed Judge Campbell made the reasonable decision to
allow Plaintiff an opportunity to replace Shell Oil with the correct defendant Equilon. There was
nothing mentioned about allowing addition claims against ARS or additional parties.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is DENIED. In accordance
with Judge Campbell’s prior ruling Plaintiff has (7) seven days from the date of this order to file
an appropriate motion to amend, upon which Defendants may file any opposition within (7)
seven days from the date of Plaintiff’s motion.

DATED this 23 February 2018.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

4