Warren v. Bastyr University et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting pltf's 28 Motion for Leave to file second amended complaint by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ALISON WARREN,
Case No. C11-1800RSL
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
BASTYR UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants,

12
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File

15

Second Amended Complaint” (Dkt. # 28). Plaintiff seeks to add Dr. Samer Koutoubi as

16

an individual defendant and add charges against Bastyr University and Dr. Koutoubi for

17

Title VII sexual and racial discrimination. The Court GRANTS the motion.1

18

A court should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ.

19

P. 15(a)(2). “This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” Eminence Capital,

20

LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). “In the

21

absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory

22

motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

23

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

24
25
26

1

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ untimely response (Dkt. #
29). Reply (Dkt. # 31) at 2. Defendants are directed, though, to review Local Civil Rule 7.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1

1

amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be

2

freely given.” Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)) (internal

3

quotation marks omitted).

4

In the present case, Defendants raise only one objection to Plaintiff’s motion: that

5

Plaintiff has yet to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge with the

6

EEOC. Response (Dkt. # 29); see Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1104

7

(9th Cir. 2008) (“A person seeking relief under Title VII must first file a charge with the

8

EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, or, if, as here, the

9

person initially instituted proceedings with the state or local administrative agency,

10

within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice.”); id. (noting that the

11

exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional). In her Reply, Plaintiff conceded that she

12

had yet to comply with this prerequisite, but indicated that she had started the process.

13

Dkt. # 31. She subsequently informed the Court that the EEOC issued her a “right to

14

sue” letter on March 6, 2012. Dkt. # 35-1. That would appear to settle the matter.

15

While the Court believes there may be an issue as to whether Plaintiff can

16

succeed on her Title VII claims given her apparent delay in filing a charge with the

17

EEOC,2 it finds that those claims “may be a proper subject of relief” and Plaintiff “ought

18

to be afforded an opportunity to test [those] claim[s] on the merits.” Foman, 371 U.S. at

19

182. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and directs Plaintiff to file her second

20

amended complaint with the Court.

21
22
23
24
25
26

2

Compare Dkt. # 28-1 (alleging that Dr. Koutoubi began harassing Plaintiff on February
25, 2011), with MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 2006)
(affirming the dismissal of Title VII claims as “untimely because [the Plaintiff] failed to file her
charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the last alleged discriminatory employment practice”).
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2

1

DATED this 6th day of April, 2012.

2
3
4

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3