United States District Court, D. Maine
DAVID E. MURRAY, Plaintiff
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendants
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT
John
H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge
In this
employment action, the plaintiff, David E. Murray, moves to
amend his complaint. See Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”)
(ECF No. 85). The defendants, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and
Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (together,
“Wal-Mart”), oppose the motion on the bases that
Murray fails to demonstrate good cause for his delay in
moving to amend and that the amendment is, in any event,
futile. See Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (“Opposition”) (ECF No. 95). I conclude
that Murray demonstrates good cause for his delay and that
his proposed amendment is not futile. Accordingly, I grant
the motion and extend the discovery deadline to September 28,
2018.
I.
Applicable Legal Standards
Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when
justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Leave to
amend should be granted in the absence of reasons “such
as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,
futility of amendment, etc ..... ” Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The
First Circuit has explained:
A motion to amend a complaint will be treated differently
depending on its timing and the context in which it is filed.
. . . As a case progresses, and the issues are joined, the
burden on a plaintiff seeking to amend a complaint becomes
more exacting. Scheduling orders, for example, typically
establish a cut-off date for amendments (as was apparently
the case here). Once a scheduling order is in place, the
liberal default rule is replaced by the more demanding
“good cause” standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). This
standard focuses on the diligence (or lack thereof) of the
moving party more than it does on any prejudice to the
party-opponent. Where the motion to amend is filed after the
opposing party has timely moved for summary judgment, a
plaintiff is required to show “substantial and
convincing evidence” to justify a belated attempt to
amend a complaint.
Steir v. Girl Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 11-12
(1st Cir. 2004) (citations, internal quotation marks, and
footnotes omitted).
Because
Murray filed the instant motion to amend long after the
parties' original March 25, 2016, deadline for doing so,
see Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12) at 2, the more
demanding “good cause” standard
applies.[1]
An
amendment is futile when “the complaint, as amended,
would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.” Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90
F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996). “In assessing futility,
the district court must apply the standard which applies to
motions to dismiss under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure]
12(b)(6).” Adorno v. Crowley Towing & Trans.
Co., 443 F.3d 122, 126 (1st Cir. 2006).
The
Supreme Court has stated:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). This
standard requires the pleading of “only enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Under
Rule 12(b)(6), a court assumes the truth of all of the
well-pleaded facts in the complaint and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
Román-Oliveras v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 655
F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir. 2011). Ordinarily, in weighing a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, “a court may not consider any
documents that are outside of the complaint, or not expressly
incorporated therein, unless the motion is converted into one
for summary judgment.” Alt. Energy, Inc. v. St.
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st
Cir. 2001). “There is, however, a narrow exception for
documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the
parties; for official public records; for documents central
to plaintiffs' claim; or for documents sufficiently
referred to in the complaint.” Id. (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
II.
...