United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KEITH WATKINS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
parties will not amend the complaint.” That is what the
parties told the court in August 2018. (Doc. # 68, at 2.) But
then Plaintiff moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint based on information her attorney apparently had
since April 2018. (Doc. # 73.) The motion for leave to amend
is due to be denied.
2016, Plaintiff Wanda Jurriaans filed two charges of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). The first alleged that Defendants
discriminated against her based on her age and gender. (Doc.
# 75, at 10-13.) Her second charge alleged that Defendants
fired her in retaliation for her first charge. (Doc. # 75, at
15-17.) The EEOC investigated the charges, found no
discrimination, and sent Plaintiff right-to-sue letters.
(Doc. # 75, at 37-45.)
then filed this action in March 2017. (Doc. # 1.) Plaintiff
amended her complaint in May 2017 (Doc. # 14) and again in
September 2017 (Doc. # 36). In essence, she claims Defendants
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The
Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation on Defendants'
motion to dismiss in December 2017. (Doc. # 55.) In July
2017, the court adopted the Recommendation in part and
rejected it in part. (Doc. # 60.)
August 2018, the parties filed a joint report under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). (Doc. # 28.) In that report,
the parties represented that they had completed discovery and
would not amend the complaint. (Doc. # 68, at 2.) The
resulting Uniform Scheduling Order set an October 1, 2018,
discovery deadline and a November 14, 2018, deadline for
amending the pleadings. (Doc. # 71, at 2.)
September 5, Plaintiff deposed Defendant Kyle Kostelecky.
(Doc. # 73, at 2.) Before defense counsel interrupted,
Plaintiff's attorney tried to ask Defendant Kostelecky
about discrimination against four other women - Margaret
Odom, Sallie Hooker, Melanie Allen, and Wanda Carpenter - who
had worked for Defendants. Those women had filed charges of
age and gender discrimination with the EEOC in March and
April 2018. (Doc. # 75, at 47-50.) Plaintiff's attorney
represents those women (Doc. # 75, at 52), and it appears his
law firm helped them prepare their EEOC charges.
Plaintiff's attorney brought Odom's draft lawsuit and
the other women's EEOC charges with him to Defendant
Kostelecky's deposition. (Doc. # 73, at 2.)
weeks after the deposition, on September 18, Plaintiff moved
to amend her complaint to allege that Defendants
“engaged in a pattern and practice of age
discrimination against four other older female
employees.” (Doc. # 73-1, at 8.) Defendants oppose the
motion to amend. (Doc. # 75.)
general, a district court “should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). But leave to amend may be denied “where there
has been undue delay” or “where amendment would
be futile.” In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082,
1108-09 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Plaintiff bears
the burden of showing that she is entitled to amend her
complaint. Id. at 1119 n.37. She has not met her
The motion for leave to amend is unduly
proposed amendment is delayed. The amendment is based on
alleged discrimination against Margaret Odom, Sallie Hooker,
Melanie Allen, and Wanda Carpenter. Odom and Hooker filed
their charges of discrimination with the EEOC in March 2018;
Allen and Carpenter filed their charges in April 2018. (Doc.
# 75, at 47-50.) Plaintiff's attorney represents all four
women (Doc. # 75, at 52), and his firm apparently helped the
four women prepare their EEOC charges. So it appears
Plaintiff's attorney could have amended Plaintiff's
complaint well before September 18, 2018.
mere delay is usually an insufficient reason to deny leave to
amend, undue delay is sufficient. Whether delay is
undue depends on “the reasons for the delay” and
“prejudice to the nonmoving party.”
Engle, 767 F.3d at 1118-19.
Plaintiff has not offered an adequate ...