IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

STACY NORRIS, 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-791

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Jolson

GLASSDOOR, INC.,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended 

Complaint Instanter. (Doc. 17). For the reasons that follow, that Motion is GRANTED. It is 

also RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) be DENIED AS MOOT. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on September 6, 2017, alleging a violation of the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, of 1994 (“USERRA”) and breach of 

contract against Defendant, her former employer. (Doc. 1). Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed a 

Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which was 

briefed and is ripe for review. (Doc. 4). The Court then entered a scheduling order in November 

2017, ordering, inter alia, that “[a]ny motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties 

[] be filed by December 29, 2017. (Doc. 11). 

On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Motion at issue, seeking to add “a 

discrimination claim under USERRA and a fraud claim.” (Doc. 17). Plaintiff avers that “[t]he 

Case: 2:17-cv-00791-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/16/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 125
2

fraud claim arises out of the same set of circumstances as the breach of contract claim.” (Id. at 

3). Defendant opposed the Motion (Doc. 19), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 22). Thus, this 

matter is ripe for resolution. 

II. STANDARD

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party seeks 

leave of court to file an amended pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so 

requires.” This rule, which allows a liberal policy in favor of granting amendments, 

“reinforce[s] the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities 

of pleadings.’” Inge v. Rock Finan. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 936 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v. 

City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)). Thus, the trial court enjoys broad 

discretion in deciding motions for leave to amend. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 

F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such 

factors as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failures to 

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by 

virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 

U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied because amendment would be 

futile, as the USERRA, breach of contract, and fraud claims fail to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. (Doc. 19). Indeed, Defendant’s Opposition presents extensive arguments 

for why it believes Plaintiff’s claim would not survive a motion to dismiss. (Id. at 6–13). While 

Defendant is correct that the Court should consider potential futility, it is important to remember 

that Plaintiff was within the timeframe set by this Court for amendment. Accordingly, at this 

Case: 2:17-cv-00791-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/16/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 126
3

early stage of the litigation, the Court is charged with determining simply whether the futility of 

an amendment is so obvious that it should be disallowed.” Bear v. Delaware Cnty., Ohio, No. 

2:14-CV-43, 2015 WL 1954451, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2015). The amended complaint here 

meets this low bar. “[T]he Court believes that it’s the better exercise of discretion to permit the 

amendment,” after which Defendant may raise the merits arguments presented in its Opposition

in a dispositive motion once the Amended Complaint is filed. Id. At that point, “the matter will 

then be subject to proper consideration by the District Judge.” Id. 

Further, the Court notes that there is no evidence of, nor does Defendant allege, any 

undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of Plaintiff. The Court also finds that at this 

stage of the litigation, Defendant will not suffer any undue prejudice by virtue of allowing the 

amendment. With these factors in mind, and in light of the federal policy in favor of liberal 

amendment, the Court finds amendment is proper at this time. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For those reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 

Instanter (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Doc. 17-1 as the Amended 

Complaint. In light of this procedural posture, it is also RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) be DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant, of course, may file another 

motion for judgment on the pleadings if it so desires. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 16, 2018 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00791-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/16/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 127