Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cummings v. Valley Health System, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 28, 2017

ANGELA CUMMINGS, Plaintiff,
v.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Presently before the court is plaintiff Angela Cummings' motion to amend/correct complaint. (ECF No. 21). Defendant Valley Health System, LLC filed a response (ECF No. 24), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 26).

         I. Facts

         The instant action involves allegations of retaliatory interference with prospective employment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e-3 eq seq. and NRS 613.200(1) and NRS 613.210, arising from a rescission of a job offer by the Veterans Administration (“VA”) allegedly based on circumstances surrounding plaintiff's employment history. (ECF No. 13).

         Plaintiff filed the original complaint in state court on September 21, 2016. (ECF No. 1-3). Defendant removed the action to federal court on October 25, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff later amended her complaint on November 18, 2016. (ECF No. 13).

         In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks leave to amend her first amended complaint to remove defendant Aurora Gomez and to clarify allegations regarding a letter sent by the VA. (ECF No. 21).

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the liberal standard district courts must apply when granting such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained:

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-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 the amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

         Further, Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Local Rule 15-1(a) states that “the moving party shall attach the proposed amended pleading to any motion seeking leave of the court to file an amended pleading.” LR 15-1(a).

         III. Discussion

         In the instant motion, plaintiff asserts that the second amended complaint merely seeks to clarify certain allegations, remove Gomez as a defendant, and raise the possibility of future amendments. (ECF No. 21 at 4). Plaintiff contends that the proposed amended complaint sets forth facts that defendant claims were lacking and removes Gomez because “it is recognized that the allegations as to Gomez need further evidentiary support.” (ECF No. 26 at 3)

         In response, defendant argues that leave to amend should be denied because the motion is sought in bad faith and with dilatory motive and any amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 24 at 5-6). Specifically, defendant contends that the motion should be denied as futile because the proposed second amended complaint merely adds conclusory allegations insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 24 at 6). Defendant further contends that the motion is made “in bad faith and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.