Opinion ID: 2980598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jones’s Motion for Leave to Amend His Complaint

Text: Jones further contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a)(2). Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading as a matter of course within the timeframe stipulated in Rule 15(a)(1), or outside of that timeframe “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Generally, we review a district court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend a claim under Rule 15(a) for an abuse -7- No. 10-3985 Jones v. WRTA of discretion. Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers’ Intern. Union of North America, 648 F.3d 295, 304 (6th Cir. 2011). If, however, the district court denied leave “because the amended pleading would not withstand a motion to dismiss,” we review that denial de novo. Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). The district court did not make such an assessment, so the former standard of review applies. Leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A district court should grant the motion “[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief . . . .” Id. But, undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motives, a failure to cure deficiencies by prior amendments, or futility weigh against the plaintiff. Id. Jones asserts in his motion that the factual predicate for his new state law claims was discovered via interrogatories produced on January 14, 2010. These interrogatories allegedly show that Moore Counseling and Mediation Services (“Moore”) was involved in the termination decision, and that this “collusive” conduct gives rise to a fiduciary duty claim. This argument fails. WRTA informed Jones, at a case management conference on November 9, 2009, almost three months before Jones filed his motion for leave, that its decision to terminate his employment “was the result of his unsuccessful completion of the anger management therapy.” In fact, Jones knew about Moore’s involvement even before that. On August 14, 2008, almost a year and a half before the filing, WRTA notified Jones that “Moore Counseling has notified WRTA that [Jones is] not in compliance with the recommendations of [his] Counselor.” Jones unduly delayed the filing of his motion for leave; any new claims he wanted to put forth could have been made in his original filing when he commenced the suit. -8- No. 10-3985 Jones v. WRTA The record suggests that Jones’s motion for leave was made in bad faith. Jones attempted to strip his complaint of any federal claims when he attached a proposed amended complaint to his motion, alleging only a violation of Ohio discrimination law. While we cannot be certain, there is no reason to believe that Jones was attempting anything other than making the district court decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), which permits it to dismiss a case if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” Indeed, it would be a peculiar proceeding if the district court were to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent claims. Jones effectively asked the district court to dismiss his complaint and, if it did not, to grant him the ability to do indirectly what he could not do directly. Jones’s delay alone provides us with enough to determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. The Supreme Court’s dictate in Foman requires district courts to permit leave to amend complaints in order for the plaintiff to have the opportunity to have his claims heard on the merits. Jones’s strategic decisions to strip the district court of jurisdiction were surely not what the Supreme Court had in mind. See, e.g., Syme v. Rowton, 555 F. Supp. 33, 35 (D. Mont. 1982) (denying a motion to add nondiverse defendants when the plaintiffs’ primary motive was to defeat the jurisdiction of the district court).