Barrett v. Americast, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER Granting 19 Defendants' Motion to Amend Answer and Granting 21 Plaintiff's Conditional Withdrawal of Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. Denies as Moot 15 Plaintiff's Request for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay. The Court DIRECTS Defendant to file their amended answer on or before Friday June 6, 2014. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 5/30/2014. (cmd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

TROY BARRETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-163
(JUDGE GROH)

AMERICAST, INC., a Virginia
Corporation, and CONCRETE
PIPE & PRECAST, LLC, a
Delaware Company,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
There are three motions pending before this Court. First, on May 1, 2014,
Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave for interlocutory appeal and stay of this matter
[Doc. 15]. Second, on May 9, 2014, Defendants filed a “Motion to Amend Answer”
[Doc. 19]. Third, on May 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a conditional withdrawal of his motion
for interlocutory appeal [Doc. 21]. The Court addresses each motion below.
I. Background
On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff Troy Barrett filed a complaint pursuant to this
Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Acts, 38 U.S.C. § 4301, et seq. His complaint
alleges that he was unlawfully discriminated against and terminated due to his military
service in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights

Act. On January 27, 2014, Defendants waived service of process. On March 7, 2014,
Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Amended Rule 12 Motion to Strike
Defendants’ Fourth, Fifth, and Fifteenth Defenses. “ On April 29, 2014, this Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion. Subsequently, on May 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting
leave for interlocutory appeal and stay of this matter. On May 9, 2014, Defendants filed
a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s request for interlocutory appeal and stay and a
motion to amend its answer. On May 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s
motion to amend its answer wherein Plaintiff stated he did not oppose Defendant’s
motion. Additionally, on May 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a conditional withdrawal of his
motion for interlocutory appeal on the basis that if the Court grants Defendants’
unopposed motion to amend its answer, then the Plaintiff withdraws his request for
interlocutory appeal and stay. Accordingly, the motions are ripe for the Court’s review.
II. Discussion
The Court first addresses Defendants’ motion to amend their answer because if
the Court grants the motion, then Plaintiff has requested to withdraw his motion
requesting interlocutory appeal and stay.
The Court analyzes Defendants’ motion to amend under Rule 15(a)’s standard
for amendments. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), “[a] party
may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required, [within] 21 days after service of a responsive pleading
or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”
However, “[i]n all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
2

party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The law is well settled “that 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.” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th
Cir.1986). Delay alone is an insufficient reason to deny leave to amend. See id.
Rather, the delay must be accompanied by prejudice, bad faith, or futility. See Edwards
v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999).
In this case, Defendants moved to amend their answer more than twenty-one
days after service of the answer. Therefore, the Court analyzes Defendants’ motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). In determining whether the Court
should grant leave to amend, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a response stating that
he had no objection to Defendants’ motion to amend their answer. Additionally, the
Court finds that allowing Defendants to amend their answer will not prejudice Plaintiff.
First, Defendants have moved to amend their answer several months before the Joinder
and Amendments deadline, which is August 27, 2014. Second, the proposed amended
answer contains no new defenses. Rather, Defendants’ proposed amended answer
actually eliminates a few claimed defenses. Defendants amendment of their answer will
not prejudice Plaintiff. There has also been no allegation of bad faith on the part of
Defendants in filing an amendment or that an amendment would be futile. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion to amend their answer is GRANTED. In light of the Court granting
Defendants’ motion to amend their answer, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion

3

requesting interlocutory appeal and stay is moot as Plaintiff indicated that he withdraws
his motion upon the Court granting Defendants’ motion to amend.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Amend
Answer [Doc. 19], GRANTS Plaintiff’s Conditional Withdrawal of His Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal [Doc. 21], and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for
Interlocutory Appeal and Stay [Doc. 15]. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to file their
amended answer on or before Friday, June 6, 2014.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and/or
pro se parties.
DATED: May 30, 2014

4