Reigel v. Runzheimer International Ltd

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 1/8/2014 DENYING 10 Motion to Amend/Correct. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KERRI L. REIGEL,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 13-C-925

RUNZHEIMER INTERNATIONAL
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff Kerri L. Reigel (“Reigel”) filed a Complaint
alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993, as amended (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (ECF No. 1.)
Defendant Runzheimer International, Inc. (“RI”) appeared and filed an answer. (ECF
Nos. 4-5.)
On December 19, 2013, Reigel filed a motion for leave to file an amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). (ECF No. 10.) Reigel
states that she wants to amend her Complaint to add disability discrimination and
retaliation claims. Although she needed to commence her action earlier to preserve her
FMLA claims, it was not until November 25, 2013, that she received her Right to Sue
Notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) with respect
to her disability discrimination and retaliation claims.

By letter dated January 6, 2014, RI states that, because it does not have
sufficient knowledge of the facts underlying the motion, it takes no position on the
motion. (ECF No. 11.)
Reigel has not attached the proposed amended Complaint to her motion, as
required by Civil Local Rule 15(b) (E.D. Wis.). Nor has she complied with Civil L.R.
7(a) which requires that a movant file a supporting memorandum and, when necessary,
various other papers, or a certificate that no such papers will be filed. The implicit bias
is toward filing a memorandum, and any other necessary papers. These requirements
are designed to inform the opposing parties so they may file meaningful responses to
motions, as well as providing the Court with the movant’s position and full knowledge
of proposed amendments so that it may issue a well-informed decision. For the
foregoing reasons, Reigel’s motion to amend is denied without prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Reigel’s motion to amend her Complaint (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of January, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-2-