Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02250/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02250-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VELDEMETRIC R. THOMAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-02250-TLN-AC 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed 

her original complaint with the assistance of counsel on October 28, 2013. ECF No. 1. 

Defendant filed its answer on November 20, 2013. ECF No. 7. Subsequently, plaintiff’s counsel 

effectively abandoned plaintiff, resulting in her self-representation. ECF Nos. 29, 32. On 

January 15, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint without requesting leave of the court. 

ECF No. 39. On January 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, again without 

seeking leave of the court. ECF No. 42. 

On February 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion styled as a motion to amend her complaint. 

ECF No. 44. Plaintiff’s filing includes a motion arguing that her claims are subject to equitable 

tolling, numerous documents in support of that argument, and finally a pleading entitled “Third 

Amended Complaint.” Id. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs district courts that “leave [to amend] shall 

Case 2:13-cv-02250-TLN-AC Document 46 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

be freely given when justice so requires.” “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 amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as 

the rules require, be freely given.” Schultz v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 68 Fed. Appx. 130, 132 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one 

misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of 

pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” Id. (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). “The strong policy permitting amendment is to be applied with ‘extreme 

liberality.’” Id. (quoting Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 

2003) (citation omitted in original). In accordance with this liberal policy, the court will grant 

plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s operative complaint is now her third amended complaint. ECF No. 

44-1 at 1–12. 

The court will not, however, grant plaintiff’s motion for equitable tolling. Equitable 

tolling is a theory that may be asserted defensively when the opposing party seeks dismissal for 

untimeliness. Although defendant has indicated that it plans to file a motion to dismiss on statute 

of limitations grounds, ECF No. 45 at 3, it has not yet done so. When such a motion is filed, 

plaintiff may present her equitable tolling argument in opposition. Until then, the issue is not 

properly before the court. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 44) is granted; 

2. The hearing on this motion, currently set for March 11, 2015, is vacated; and 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for equitable tolling (ECF No. 44) is denied. 

DATED: February 5, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-02250-TLN-AC Document 46 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 2