United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. GOODWIN DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the court is the plaintiff's unopposed Motion to
Amend Motion to Amend Deadline and Complaint [ECF No. 63].
Also before the court is the plaintiff's unopposed
Amended Motion to Amend Deadline and Complaint [ECF No.
63-1]. For the reasons that follow, the Motions are
Scheduling Order [ECF No. 26] in this case specifies that (1)
the amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties shall be
completed by June 7, 2018 and (2) the amendment of pleadings
and joinder of parties is subject to Rules 15 and 16, and the
accompanying rules governing the joinder of parties.
Scheduling Order 1-2. On November 15, 2018, the plaintiff
filed a Motion to Amend Deadline and Complaint [ECF No. 62].
On November 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend
Motion to Amend Deadline and Complaint [ECF No. 63], seeking
an order permitting the plaintiff to amend the initial motion
to amend. The court now GRANTS that Motion
[ECF No. 63].
plaintiff also filed an Amended Motion to Amend Deadline and
Complaint [ECF No. 63-1] on November 19, 2018, in which the
plaintiff moves to amend his Complaint [ECF No. 1] to add the
following parties as defendants: Alutiiq Technical Services,
LLC and Alutiiq LLC (collectively “Alutiiq”); the
West Virginia National Guard; and Major General James A.
Hoyer, in his official capacity as Adjutant General of the
West Virginia National Guard. The plaintiff also seeks to
delete the Family and Medical Leave Act cause of action and
to make minor changes to address information. Lastly, the
plaintiff seeks a new scheduling order. The plaintiff states
that the current defendant, TSI Corp. (“TSI”),
does not object to the amended motion to amend.
order to amend after an established deadline, “a moving
party first must satisfy the good cause standard of Rule
16(b). If the moving party satisfies Rule 16(b), the movant
then must pass the tests for amendment under Rule
15(a).” Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D 250, 254
(S.D. W.Va. 1995). Under the Rule 16(b) standard, a party
seeking to amend the scheduling order must demonstrate
“good cause, ” which is typically shown by
establishing that the reason for the amendment was not
otherwise discoverable through “due diligence.”
15(a)'s more liberal standard, on the other hand,
requires the court to analyze the “bad faith of the
party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to
the opposing party.” Id. (quoting Johnson
v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th
Cir. 1992)). Under Rule 15, “[t]he court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a). Such “leave to amend a pleading should be denied
only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing
party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving
party, or the amendment would be futile.”
Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th
plaintiff's amendment must also comply with applicable
joinder rules: To amend a complaint to add additional parties
after the filing of a responsive pleading, “a movant
must seek leave of the court pursuant to Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and he must
demonstrate compliance with either Rule 19 or Rule 20, the
procedural rules pertaining to joinder of parties.”
Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 460, 462
(S.D. W.Va. 2001) (emphasis added). Rule 19 governs the
required joinder of parties. Rule 19 provides:
A person who is subject to service of process and whose
joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter
jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that
person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief
among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest
relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that
disposing of the action in the person's absence may: (i)
as a practical matter impair or impede the person's
ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing
party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double,
multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).
governs the permissive joinder of parties. Rule 20 states
that parties may be joined in one action as defendants if:
“(A) any right to relief is asserted against them . . .
with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B)
any question of law or fact common to all defendants will
arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2).