Tesfa v. American Red Cross
Filing
68
ORDER denying 52 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and denying 53 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/21/13. (sem1)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SEFANIT TESFA,
Case No. 2:12-cv-0397
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN RED CROSS,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on (1) Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11 and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
(ECF Nos. 52 and 53.) The Court DENIES both motions.
I.
Plaintiff asks for Rule 11 sanctions as a consequence of Defendant American Red Cross
filing a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 40) of this Court’s order denying in part
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff asks for “an award of
attorney’s fees and costs associated with having to respond to Defendant’s frivolous motion for
reconsideration.” (ECF No. 52 at PageID# 815.)
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a couple of reasons. First, the Court is
unimpressed by Plaintiff’s premise that she was forced into “having to respond” to Defendant’s
“frivolous” motion. Plaintiff’s response seems to have been an afterthought. Plaintiff did not
file a timely response to the motion for reconsideration and the Court denied as moot her request
to file a brief in opposition to the motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 66.) Given that the
Court did not require the benefit of Plaintiff’s response to deny Defendant’s motion for
1
reconsideration, the Court is not convinced of the premise that Plaintiff had to respond, let alone
expend the time to respond when her time for doing so had already passed.
Second, it does not appear from the face of Plaintiff’s motion that she complied with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) before filing her motion for sanctions. Specifically, there is no evidence
before the Court that Plaintiff served Defendant with her Rule 11 motion and gave Defendant an
opportunity to withdraw it before Plaintiff filed the motion with the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(c)(2) (“The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or presented to the
court if the challenged paper . . . is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after
service or within another time the court sets.”).
II.
Plaintiff also moves this Court for an order allowing her to file a supplemental complaint
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Under Rule 15(d), “the court may, on just terms, permit a party to
serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened
after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.”
Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplemental pleading that adds a claim for retaliation
against Defendant. According to Plaintiff, who still works for the Red Cross, one of the alleged
decisionmakers (Evette Wise) who denied Plaintiff the promotion at issue in this case has
allegedly retaliated against Plaintiff for filing this action. Specifically, Plaintiff’s motion asserts
that Wise “docked Plaintiff three weeks leave time” after conducting “a ten-year look back audit
of Plaintiff’s leave time.” (ECF No. 53-1 at PageID# 828.) Plaintiff believes this audit was
retaliatory and that some of the “docked” leave time actually qualifies for protection under the
federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). (Id. at PageID# 828-29.) Plaintiff therefore
2
seeks leave to file a supplemental complaint that adds claims for retaliation and violations of the
FMLA.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. Although the Court may allow a plaintiff to add
claims in a supplemental complaint, doing so here would inevitably delay these proceedings
when the matter is already set for trial in four weeks. In the Court’s view, allowing
supplementation would unduly delay resolution of the present case. See Eidam v. Bailey, No.
1:10-cv-34, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69609, at *11 (E.D. Mich. June 29, 2011). “A trial court
does not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow supplementation of a complaint which would
add extraneous matter late in the case.” Id. (citing Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d
1201, 1229 (11th Cir. 2009); In re Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 250 (7th Cir. 1992)). If Plaintiff wishes
to pursue her retaliation and FMLA claims in a separate lawsuit, she is free to do so.
III.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF
No. 52) and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 53).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES 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?
