Hurley v. Wayne County Board of Education et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 50 MOTION to for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; granting Plaintiff's 51 MOTION to Vacate the Scheduling Order and Continue Trial; directing that the present 15 Scheduling Or der for this case is VACATED and trial is CONTINUED; the Court will set this matter for a Scheduling Conference after the newly-named parties have had the opportunity to appear in this action and respond to the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 11/17/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

JOANN HURLEY, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-9949

THOMAS MESSER, a West Virginia resident,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 50) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order and Continue Trial
(ECF No. 51). For reasons stated herein, both motions are GRANTED.
I.

Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint with this Court on October 21, 2016 against defendants Wayne
County Board of Education (BoE) and Thomas Messer (ECF No. 1). The Court granted the BoE’s
Motion to Dismiss and Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 4, 10) by Memorandum Opinion
and Order entered June 6, 2017 (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff was permitted, however, to file an
Amended Complaint as against Messer (ECF No. 35).
Plaintiff now asks this Court to grant her leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 50). Plaintiff asserts, as cause for the amendment, that she took the deposition of Ms. Brook
Golden, former spouse of Messer, on September 14, 2017 (ECF No. 50). Plaintiff alleges that Ms.
Golden’s deposition testimony “revealed several facts unknown to Plaintiff at the time the original

and first amended complaints were filed” (ECF No. 50). Accordingly, Plaintiff requests leave to
amend her complaint to “conform the pleadings to the facts and evidence discovered” (ECF No.
50).
II.

Standard for Amendment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a plaintiff may amend her complaint
with the leave of court. “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 15(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit has interpreted this language liberally, ruling that leave to amend
“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.” Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original).
III.

Analysis

In its June 6, 2017 Order, the Court found that Plaintiff had made “no allegation that [could]
support a claim for direct liability against the BoE” (ECF No. 34). The Court additionally found
that Plaintiff had failed to allege that Messer had been acting within the scope of his employment
and for the service of his employer, the BoE, at the time of the alleged actions (ECF No. 34).
Plaintiff cures both defects in her Second Amended Complaint, alleging both that the BoE actively
participated in the alleged scheme and that Messer acted to serve the BoE within the scope of his
employment (ECF No. 50-2). Additionally, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments involving the BoE
would not prejudice the BoE, are not proposed in bad faith, and would not be futile. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as to the BoE is GRANTED.
As against the remaining defendants, the Court FINDS that allowing the amendments
would not be prejudicial to the opposing parties, that there has been no bad faith on Plaintiff’s part,
and that making the proposed amendments would not be futile. Plaintiff has discovered new

-2-

information through discovery and seeks to amend her Complaint to conform it to that new
information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend as to all remaining defendants is
GRANTED.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Scheduling
Order and Continue Trial (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED. The present Scheduling Order for this case
(ECF No. 15) is VACATED and trial is CONTINUED. The Court will set this matter for a
Scheduling Conference after the newly-named parties have had the opportunity to appear in this
action and respond to the Second Amended Complaint.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.

ENTER:

November 17, 2017

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-