Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership et al, No. 7:2024cv00004 - Document 20 (E.D. Ky. 2024)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Court hereby ORDERS that Barath's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (DE 8 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/6/2024. (RCB) cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership et al Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PIKEVILLE DIVISION SHERRI BARATH, CASE NO. 7:24-CV-4-KKC Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER WALMART STORES EAST, L.P. and SHIELDS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE, LLC, Defendants. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sherri Barath’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (DE 8.) Barath seeks to add Todd Taylor d/b/a Triple T Limited Liability Company and Triple T Limited Liability Company as defendants to this action. Defendant Walmart Stores East, L.P. (hereinafter, “Walmart”) objects to this amendment on grounds of futility. The Court will deny Barath’s motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that: “[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” “One reason to deny leave is futility of amendment.” Parchman v. SLM Corporation, 896 F.3d 728, 737 (6th Cir. 2018). “A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Id. at 738 (quotation marks omitted). The Court agrees with Walmart that Barath’s proposed amendment is futile. Barath brings an action for personal injury against the defendants. Actions for personal injury must be brought within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued. KRS § 413.140(1)(a). Here, Barath asserts that her injury took place on December 23, 2022. Dockets.Justia.com (DE 1-3 at 3-4.) She originally filed this action on December 14, 2023, within the statute of limitations, and now seeks to add new defendants through her February 9, 2024 motion for leave to file an amended complaint. But “the precedent of this circuit clearly holds that an amendment which adds a new party creates a new cause of action and there is no relation back to the original filing for purposes of limitations.” Asher v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc., 596 F.3d 313, 318 (6th Cir. 2010). Adding the proposed defendants to the action is futile because the statute of limitations has run and the amendment would not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Barath’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (DE 8) is DENIED. This 6th day of June, 2024. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
