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.

Wang v. Nevada System of Higher Education

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 19, 2018

GUANGYU WANG, Plaintiff,
v.
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Defendant.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. SUMMARY

         Before the Court are four motions: Defendant Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine's (“UNR Med”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6); Plaintiff Guangyu Wang's Motion to Amend (ECF No. 12); Defendant's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 15); and Plaintiff's Motion to Add a Pleading to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to LR 15-1 (“Motion to Add a Pleading”) (ECF No. 16). For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's motions and denies Defendant's motions as moot.

         II. BACKGROUND

         This is a Title VII retaliation case. Plaintiff worked for UNR Med and was terminated. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against UNR Med regarding his discharge, and the parties reached a settlement. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that after the settlement, the head of the UNR Med department in which Plaintiff worked retaliated against Plaintiff for filing the charge of discrimination by providing an unfavorable reference to Plaintiff's future employer. (Id.)

         III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (ECF NO. 12)

         Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint in order to add compensatory damages to his requests for relief. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) “A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(b). Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend on April 3, 2018, eighteen days after Defendant served its Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on March 15, 2018. (ECF Nos. 6, 12.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend will be granted as a matter of course.[1]

         IV. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD A PLEADING (ECF NO. 16)

         Plaintiff filed his Motion to Add a Pleading on April 16, 2018, more than twenty-one days after service of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on March 15, 2018. (ECF Nos. 6, 16.) In these circumstances, “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). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. “The decision of whether to grant leave to amend nevertheless remains within the discretion of the district court, which may deny leave to amend due to ‘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, [and] futility of amendment.'” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). However, “[u]ndue delay by itself is insufficient to justify denying leave to amend.” United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712- 13 (9th Cir. 2001)).

         Plaintiff seeks to augment his proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with exhibits related to grant awards he received. (See ECF No. 16 at 1-2.) Because Plaintiff may amend his complaint, the Court finds that no undue prejudice would result from allowing Plaintiff to add exhibits to his complaint. In addition, the record before the Court does not reflect undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or failure to cure deficiencies on the part of the movant. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to Add a Pleading.

         V. DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 6, 15)

         Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot given Plaintiff's intent to file an amended complaint. Defendant's Motion to Strike will also be denied as moot, though Plaintiff is advised that “[s]urreplies are not permitted without leave of court.” LR 7-2(b).

         VI. CONCLUSION

         The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as ...


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.