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, )

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).