Serlin v. Alexander Dawson School, LLC et al
Filing
32
ORDER Granting 21 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint attached to motion as exhibit 1 within 10 days of the publication of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/7/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
CHERI SERLIN
8
9
2:12-CV-1431 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),
10
v.
11
THE ALEXANDER DAWSON
SCHOOL, et al.,
12
13
Defendant(s).
14
15
ORDER
16
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct complaint. (Doc. # 21).
17
Defendants filed a response in opposition (doc. # 23), and plaintiff filed a reply (doc. # 25).
18
I.
Background
19
Plaintiff was a school teacher. She lost her job and alleges it was due to age discrimination
20
and Family and Medical Leave Act violations, among other things. (See doc. # 21). Plaintiff
21
received a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
22
Plaintiff timely filed the instant lawsuit after receiving the right to sue letter.
23
Plaintiff named all of the following as defendants in her complaint: Alexander Dawson
24
School, a Nevada limited liability company; Alexander Dawson School, a Nevada corporation; and
25
Alexander Dawson Foundation. (Doc. # 1, Compl.). Plaintiff now seeks to amend her complaint
26
and add Alexander Dawson School at Rainbow Mountain, LLC as a defendant. (Doc. # 21). This
27
is plaintiff’s first request to amend her complaint.
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
II.
Legal Standard
2
“[L]eave to amend should be granted ‘if at appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct
3
the defect.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations and quotations
4
omitted).
5
Under Rule 15©, “[a]n amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original
6
pleading” in three circumstances. First, for all amendments, relation back is permitted if “the law
7
that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(A).
8
Second, relation back is permitted if “the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the
9
conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out–or attempted to be set out–in the original pleading.”
10
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B).
11
For the third circumstance, the party seeking to amend its complaint must satisfy several
12
showings. Relation back is permitted if “ the amendment changes the party or the naming of the
13
party against whom a claim is asserted if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period
14
provided by Rule 4(m) . . ., the party to be brought in by amendment: (I) received such notice of the
15
action that it will not be prejudiced on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action
16
would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.”
17
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)©; see generally Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc., 5 F.3d 431, 434
18
(9th Cir. 1993) (discussing Rule 15(c)(1)© prior to the amended current version).
19
In addition to the Rule 15 requirements, the local rules of federal practice in the District of
20
Nevada require that a plaintiff submit a proposed, amended complaint along with a motion to amend.
21
LR 15-1(a).
22
III.
Discussion
23
Plaintiff argues that its omission of Alexander Dawson School at Rainbow Mountain was a
24
mistake and that the liberal standard of Rule 15 allows her to amend her complaint. Defendants
25
counter by arguing that the court should not allow an amendment because the statute of limitations
26
(90 days) of filing an action pursuant to an EEOC right to sue letter has passed. Defendants further
27
argue that plaintiff purposefully omitted Alexander Dawson School at Rainbow Mountain from the
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
Alexander Dawson School entities.
2
In plaintiff’s reply, she argues that she meets the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B)
3
and (c)(1)©. The court agrees with plaintiff. Her proposed amended complaint properly arose out
4
of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading as required by Rule
5
15(c)(1)(B). Plaintiff’s firing is part of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence that forms the
6
basis of the complaint.
7
The complaint also seeks to add a defendant that knew or should have known that plaintiff
8
made a mistake. The defendant sought to be added, Alexander Dawson School at Rainbow
9
Mountain, is closely affiliated with the current defendants. The Alexander Dawson School at
10
Rainbow Mountain was on notice of the action within the time period provided by Rule 4(m)
11
because of the close relationship with the other defendants.
12
Additionally, the Alexander Dawson School at Rainbow Mountain knew or should have
13
known that this action would have been brought against it but for a mistake or oversight concerning
14
its identity. See Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S.Ct. 2485, 2493-97 (2010); Schiavone v.
15
Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 27-32 (1986); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31. The defendant that plaintiff seeks
16
to add will not be prejudiced because (1) the new defendant should have already been on notice of
17
the lawsuit and (2) discovery has yet to begin in this lawsuit. The court finds it appropriate to permit
18
plaintiff to amend her complaint.
19
Accordingly,
20
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to
21
22
23
24
amend/correct complaint (doc. # 21) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall filed the proposed amended complaint that
is attached to her motion as exhibit 1 within ten (10) days of the publication of this order.
DATED February 7, 2013.
25
26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
]]>
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?
