Hubbard et al v. Holmes
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/23/18. (hnw)
03/23/2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION
RODNEY HUBBARD, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASE NO. 3:16–cv–00018
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANDREW HOLMES, ET AL.,
JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON
Defendants.
This case concerns a traffic stop of Rodney Hubbard and his mother Samantha Hubbard,
the Plaintiffs. They allege Andrew Holmes, one of the Defendants, stopped their car and
engaged in an extended search because they are African-American.
Defendants moved to
dismiss the case, and Plaintiffs responded by filing their first amended complaint. (Dkt. 15).
Defendants then filed a second motion to dismiss. Judge Conrad granted the motion in part on
November 17, 2016, dismissing the first four counts as insufficiently pled, but allowing the fifth
count to survive. (Dkt. 23).1 The surviving count alleges a denial of equal protection, based on
Defendants’ alleged racially selective enforcement of the law.
Fifteen months later, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint again to remedy some of
the problems been identified by Judge Conrad. (Dkt. 32). That motion is now before the Court.
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing the new allegations still do not state a claim and
reintroduction of these claims would prejudice Defendants. The Court finds the amendment
1
The case started in state court, was removed to this Court, and was transferred from
Judge Conrad to myself. (See dkts. 1, 30). Count One alleged the stop was an unlawful seizure
in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Count Two alleged the stop, and in
particular the use of handcuffs, involved an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Counts Three and Four alleged the warrantless searches of their
persons and vehicle violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because there was no
reason to believe Plaintiffs were armed and dangerous or that there was evidence of a crime in
the vehicle.
would prejudice Defendants and would require changes to the scheduling framework established
by Judge Conrad, and so the motion will be denied.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party’s freedom to amend their pleadings evolves over the lifecycle of a case. At the
beginning, parties may amend “as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). And even after
the time frame anticipated by Rule 15(a)(1) has passed, leave to amend a pleading should be
freely given “when justice so requires.” Id. at 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962) (“[T]his mandate is to be heeded.”). The Fourth Circuit has interpreted this to mean
“leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to
the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment
would be futile.” Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 409 (4th Cir. 2013)
(emphasis in original, internal quotations omitted). But the longer parties delay, the more likely
the proposed amendment will prejudice the nonmovant. See Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton
Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 604 (4th Cir. 2010) (“We find compelling the court’s analysis that the
amendment—coming so belatedly—would change the nature of the litigation and, would
therefore, prejudice Niles Bolton.”). And so “[b]elated claims which change the character of
litigation are not favored.” Deasy v. Hill, 833 F.2d 38, 42 (4th Cir. 1987).
However, when a belated amendment would require a court to modify the existing
scheduling order, the court’s evaluation of the proposed amendment changes in kind. This is
because “Rule 16(b) provides that ‘a schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of
good cause and by leave of the district judge.’” Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295,
298 (4th Cir. 2008) (discussing the tension between Rule 15 and Rule 16). “[A]fter the deadlines
–2–
provided by a scheduling order have passed, the good cause standard must be satisfied to justify
leave to amend the pleadings.” Id.
II.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend was filed before the deadline established by Judge Conrad,
(dkt. 29 at ¶ 12), and so this analysis begins with Rule 15(a)(2). Under that rule, the three
primary questions for this Court are whether Plaintiffs acted with bad faith, amendment would be
futile, or Defendants would be prejudiced. Balas, 711 F.3d at 409. There is no evidence of bad
faith before the Court, and so that potential bar to amendment is summarily dispensed. The
Court moves on to the second two questions, before independently addressing concerns arising
under Rule 16(b)(4).
Defendants first argue the proposed counts would be futile. However, in so arguing,
Defendants primarily attempt to rebut the allegations with evidence adduced through discovery.
(Dkt. 34 at 3–5). But the futility inquiry concerns whether the allegations themselves would
state a claim, not whether they may eventually prove unfounded or whether Defendants may
possess valid defenses. See Balas, 711 F.3d at 410. Accordingly, the Court assumes the
amendments would not be futile, and instead focuses on whether Defendants would be
prejudiced by amendment.
The Court finds amendment at this stage would prejudice Defendants. “Whether an
amendment is prejudicial will often be determined by the nature of the amendment and its
timing.” Laber, 438 F.3d at 427 (emphasis added). “A common example of a prejudicial
amendment is one that raises a new legal theory that would require the gathering and analysis of
facts not already considered by the defendant, and is offered shortly before or during trial.” Id.
(internal alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted). This is the situation now before the
–3–
Court. See also Equal Rights Ctr., 602 F.3d at 603–04 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court held
that the addition of a contribution claim after the close of a three-year long discovery process and
on the eve of the deadline for dispositive motions would have required it to reopen discovery and
thereby prejudice Niles Bolton. . . . We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
finding the proposed amendment would be unduly prejudicial to Niles Bolton.”).
Most problematically here, Defendants have not had an opportunity to interrogate
Plaintiffs’ new allegations through discovery and would not be able to seek summary judgment
on those claims without an amendment of the Court’s scheduling order.
In the proposed
amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Holmes told them he pulled them over because
he found it suspicious that Plaintiffs had slowed when they passed him. (Dkt. 32-1 at ¶ 6).
Plaintiffs deny they were speeding. (Id. at ¶ 7). Plaintiffs also allege Defendant Holmes asserted
he smelled marijuana in the vehicle. (Id. at ¶ 8). Plaintiffs deny there was any smell of
marijuana in the vehicle. (Id. at ¶ 9). Plaintiffs allege Defendant Holmes put handcuffs on
Plaintiff Rodney Hubbard, although Plaintiff had no bulges on his person suggesting possession
of a weapon. (Id. at ¶ 11). Each of these facts would be relevant to the new claims. Each of
these facts would also have been available to Plaintiffs both when they filed the first amended
complaint and during the fifteen months that passed after Judge Conrad’s motion to dismiss
opinion, but Plaintiffs made no allegations about whether they were in fact speeding or whether
their car smelled liked marijuana in the original complaint.
Any reasonable litigant in Defendants’ position would have sought to delve more deeply
into the newly-alleged facts. For example, the complaint alleges “Plaintiff had not exceeded the
speed limit.” (Dkt. 32-1 at ¶ 7). But Defendants represent they “did not pursue discovery related
to whether Officer Holmes’ stop of Plaintiffs was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment
–4–
because Fourth Amendment claims did not exist at the time of discovery.” (Dkt. 34 at 8). While
Defendant Holmes did already provide deposition testimony about when and where he believed
Plaintiffs were speeding, it is certainly true that evidence about if and when Plaintiffs were
speeding becomes more important with the proposed Fourth Amendment claim. The basis for
new Plaintiffs’ new denial of any speeding would be central to any determination of whether
Defendant Holmes had probable cause.
Likewise, Defendants state they would hire an expert to defend these new claims. While
expert testimony may be unnecessary for some parts of Defendants’ case, this Court has
previously admitted experts to testify about whether law enforcement practices conformed to
best practices in excessive force claims. See, e.g., Wyatt v. Owens, 317 F.R.D. 535, 543 (W.D.
Va. 2016) (allowing expert testimony on excessive force claims), reconsideration denied, No.
7:14-CV-00492, 2016 WL 6651410 (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2016). Similar testimony may be
admissible here.
Plaintiffs respond by arguing the stop remains at the center of all the claims, and so there
are “no ‘new’ facts to explore.” (Dkt. 33 at 2). But even if the same events are at the center of
both claims, the new claims make different aspects of those events more relevant. The primary
problem here is Plaintiffs’ belated motion to amend removes Defendants’ ability to investigate
their case as they see fit. Defendants would be prejudiced by being forced to defend claims they
did not have the opportunity to explore through discovery.
These concerns could only be cured by reopening discovery and changing the deadlines
for summary judgment briefing, which leads to the interests safeguarded by Rule 16(b)(4). That
rule states: “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Judge Conrad’s scheduling order provided “[a]ny motion . . . to amend the pleadings must be
–5–
filed prior to the cutoff day for discovery.” (Dkt. 29 at ¶ 12). Plaintiffs filed their motion three
weeks before discovery closed, satisfying this order. However, briefing on this motion did not
conclude until March 16, 2018, the last day of discovery. The deadline for filing summary
judgment motions, March 22, 2018, has also now passed, with Defendants filing their motion
seeking judgment on the remaining claim. So allowing amendment now would require the
modification of Judge Conrad’s scheduling order, something not to be done except “for good
cause.” Plaintiffs have not explained why they waited fifteen months to allege new facts and add
new claims.
*
*
*
Discovery is closed, the deadline for dispositive motions approaches, and trial is less than
a month and a half away. The Court finds that allowing an amendment at this late hour would
prejudice Defendants. The motion for leave to amend will be denied. An appropriate order will
issue. The Clerk of Court is requested to send a copy of this Opinion and the accompanying
Order to the parties.
23rd
Entered this _____ day of March, 2018.
–6–
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?