United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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).
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).
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).
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
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
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).
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).
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)
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 ...