Chapman v. Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/3/2017. (sbea, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JOSEPH D. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:15cv679 ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joseph D. Chapman's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (ECFNo. 15.) Defendant Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.'s ("Asbury") has responded, (ECF No. 17), and Chapman has replied, (ECF No. 18). This matter is ripe for disposition. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.' For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Chapman's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. I. Procedural and Factual Baclcground A. Procedural Historv The Court previously granted Asbury's Motion to Dismiss and closed this case. The Court did not indicate that the dismissal was "without prejudice," thereby ruling, by default, that it was "with prejudice." See Mueller v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 669 F. App'x 644 (4th Cir. 2016) ("In general, absent a contrary intention, a dismissal for failure to state a claim is with prejudice."); see also Carter v. Norfolk Cmty. Hosp. ^55 'n, Inc., 761 F,2d 970, 974 (4th Cir. ' The parties are diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

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?