Moore v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 2:2005cv01065 - Document 104 (S.D. Ohio 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 89 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint - plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within ten days. Signed by Terence P Kemp on 1/30/2009. (pes)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION William J. Moore, : Plaintiff, : v. : Abbott Laboratories, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:05-cv-1065 : JUDGE WATSON : OPINION AND ORDER This employment discrimination case is before the Court to consider plaintiff William J. Moore s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted. I. The background of this motion can be stated simply. When Mr. Moore initially filed this case, he did not have a right-tosue letter from the EEOC regarding some of his claims. He has now received that letter and wishes to assert the claims which he presented to the EEOC. Those include retaliation once he became re-employed by Abbott, and also his claim for constructive discharge. Abbott notes in its response that it has no objection to the filing of the amended complaint as long as it is given a full opportunity to conduct discovery on the claims raised in the complaint and to file a dispositive motion on those claims should the evidence support such a motion. It also notes that there was, at the time the motion was filed, a disagreement between the parties as to readjusting the case schedule. That disagreement has now been resolved. A new discovery deadline and motions filing deadline have been established, and the plaintiff s deposition will be completed in the near future. Under these circumstances, the Court does not believe that any prejudice will result from the filing of the amended complaint. Consequently, the motion for leave to amend (#89) is granted. Mr. Moore shall file an amended complaint identical in substance to Exhibit One to his motion within ten days. II. Any party may, within ten (10) days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. ยง636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. I., F., 5. The motion must specifically designate the order or part in question and the basis for any objection. Responses to objections are due ten days after objections are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.4. /s/ Terence P. Kemp United States Magistrate Judge -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.
