Chambers v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., No. 8:2011cv00404 - Document 15 (D. Md. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/15/11. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : CARLA V. CHAMBERS : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 11-0404 : CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination case is a motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 12). filed by Plaintiff Carla V. Chambers. The issues have been fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant Plaintiff s motion to amend. I. Background The following (ECF No. 1). facts are set forth in the complaint. Plaintiff Carla V. Chambers, an African American woman, was employed by Defendant Choice Hotels International, Inc. as a developer February 4, 2010. from July (Id. ¶ 5). 2007 until her discharge on Although Plaintiff received an above average performance evaluation for the period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, on January 15, 2010, Plaintiff was allegedly discharged for errors evidencing a continued inability to meet standards of performance. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 8). Defendant cites errors made in November 2009 and on February 2, 2010, as reasons for Plaintiff s discharge. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 13). Plaintiff alleges that the November 2009 error was not cited in her January 2010 performance evaluation and that persons other than Plaintiff were responsible for the error. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10). Plaintiff also contends that she was not responsible for the February 2, 2010 error. (Id. ¶ 13). Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) on October 4, 2010, and cross-filed the charge with the Montgomery County, Maryland, Office of Human Rights. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16). notice by of right to sue the EEOC After receiving a on November 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court on February 14, 2011, alleging racially discriminatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ( Title VII ) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ( § 1981 ). Plaintiff second seeks defendant, Corporation, Inc. response to leave to Choice amend Hotels (ECF No. 12 ¶ 10). Defendant s assertion the (Id. ¶¶ 17-27). complaint International to add a Services Plaintiff s motion is a that Plaintiff was not employed by Defendant Choice Hotels International, but Choice Hotels International Services Corporation, Inc. Plaintiff argues that the court should permit the amendment in order to 2 prevent Defendant from escaping liability confusion it has created over its own name. opposes the motion. II. because (Id.). of the Defendant (ECF No. 13). Standard of Review Plaintiff has moved to amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. leave to amend requires. should be the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) provides that freely given when justice so Thus, 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 amendment would be futile. BearingPoint, Inc., Matrix 576 F.3d Capital 172, 193 Mgmt. (4th Fund, Cir. LP v. 2009). An amendment is futile if it would fail to withstand a motion to Perkins v. United States, 55 F.3d 910, 917 (4th Cir. dismiss. 1995). Under modern practice, if the right party is before the court, although under a wrong name, an misnomer of parties will be allowed. amendment to cure a United States v. A.H. Fischer Lumber Co., 162 F.2d 872, 874 (4th Cir. 1947) (internal quotation marks and S.C.C.P. Painting citation omitted); Contractors, Inc., see 589 also Montoya F.Supp.2d 569, v. 573 (D.Md. 2008) (granting motion for leave to amend summons and complaint to correct misnomer). Amendments to correct misnomer may be allowed notwithstanding the running of the statue of limitations in the interim between the commencement of the suit 3 and the motion for amendment, and the amendment will relate back to the institution of the suit. A.H. Fischer Lumber Co., 162 F.2d at 874; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(C) (providing that an amended pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when the amendment changes the naming of the party against whom the claim is asserted if the party to be brought in by amendment (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (2) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party s identity. ). III. Analysis Plaintiffs motion is a straightforward request for leave to amend to correct the misnomer in her original complaint. Defendant argues that leave to amend should be denied, however, because Plaintiff s failure to comply with Local Rules 103.6.a and 103.6.c is materially prejudicial to Defendant. also argues that Plaintiff s Plaintiff knew previously Services Corporation, motion that Inc. is Choice was made Hotels the to Defendant delay, as International correct party. (ECF No. 13). Local Rule 103.6.a provides that a party seeking to amend a pleading shall include an original copy of the proposed amended pleading with the motion. Further, Local Rule 103.6.c provides 4 that a party filing an amended pleading shall file and serve (1) a clean copy of the amended pleading and (2) a copy of the amended pleading through or underlined in enclosed or set which in stricken brackets forth in material and new bold-faced has been material type. As lined has been Plaintiff failed to include a copy of the amended complaint and a copy of the amended complaint with the proposed changes indicated, Defendant argues that the instant motion should be denied. Although Defendant is correct in its assertion that Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 103.6, Defendant was not materially prejudiced by Plaintiff s non-compliance. motion to amendment amend to the the complaint, complaint Plaintiff was to specified add In her that Choice International Services Corporation as a defendant. the Hotels Although Plaintiff did not properly attach a blacklined proposed amended complaint to her original motion, the blacklined complaint attached to her reply (ECF. No. 14, Ex. 2), indicates that the only change sought was the addition of a second party as stated by Plaintiff s original motion. (ECF No. 12). had sufficient notice of the proposed change. Thus, Defendant Plaintiff is expected to comply fully with Local Rule 103 in the future. Further, Defendant s assertion cause undue delay is unfounded. that Plaintiff seeks to The original scheduling order stipulated that the deadline for amendment of the pleadings and 5 joinder of parties in this action was May 6, 2011. (ECF No. 8). As Plaintiff filed the instant motion on May 6, 2011, she was within the deadline to amend the pleadings set by the scheduling order. Although Defendant alerted Plaintiff that Choice Hotels International Plaintiff was waited not the until correct May to party file in the March 2011 instant and motion (ECF No. 13, Exs. 1-3), delay alone, without any prejudice, does not support the denial of leave to amend. Deasy v. Hill, 833 F.2d 38, 40 (4th Cir. 1987). As Plaintiff s proposed amended complaint is not prejudicial to Defendant, has not been made in bad faith, and is not alleged to be futile, this court will grant Plaintiff s motion to amend. Plaintiff s amended complaint will relate back to the date of her original pleading pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(C). IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the motion to amend filed by Plaintiff Carla V. Chambers will be granted. A separate order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 6
]]>
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.
