United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.)
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (ECF NO. 12)
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.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD A PLEADING (ECF NO.
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)).
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.
DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 6, 15)
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).
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 ...