United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers, Chief Judge United States District Court
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motions to
Dismiss (DN 5, 19), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint (DN 25), and Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand (DN 26). The motions are ripe for adjudication. For
the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED, the other
motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and this matter is REMANDED to
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CLAIMS
Ona Hull (“Plaintiff”) is a former employee of
Defendant The Rawlings Co., LLC (“Defendant”).
(Compl. ¶ 5, DN 1). Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state
court asserting various claims against her former employer,
including: Kentucky Wage & Hour Act, KRS Chapter 337;
Kentucky Civil Rights Act, KRS Chapter 344; Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654;
and Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
12101-12213. (Compl. ¶¶ 89-154). Defendant timely
removed the matter to this Court. (Notice Removal, DN 1).
removal, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint.
(Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, DN 5). In response, Plaintiff filed
the First Amended Complaint. (Pl.'s Notice Filing, DN 15;
First Am. Compl., DN 16).
then moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Def.'s Mot.
Dismiss, DN 19). In her response to the motion, Plaintiff
agreed to withdraw all of her claims except for Count VI and
noted her intent to file an amended complaint asserting only
a retaliation claim under the KCRA. (Pl.'s Resp.
Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2-3, DN 22). Subsequently, Plaintiff
moved for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint and to
only assert the retaliation claim under the KCRA. (Second Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 67-74). Plaintiff also moved to remand
this action to state court. (Pl.'s Mot. Remand, DN 26).
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (DN 25)
preliminary matter, the Court will address Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint because it
resolves the issues raised in the other motions. Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) which states
that “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). A court should freely
grant leave to amend a pleading “when justice so
requires.” Id. However, a court may deny a
motion to amend where there is “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 .....
” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Defendant argues that it is unfair and prejudicial that
Plaintiff be allowed to file the Second Amended Complaint
because it has moved to dismiss the prior complaints, that
alone is not sufficient to warrant the denial of this motion.
This case is still in its infancy, and the parties have not
conducted any discovery in this action. Plaintiff seeks to
voluntarily dismiss her federal claims, which will reduce the
potential scope of discovery in this matter. Accordingly, the
Court will grant this motion.
Second Amended Complaint, however, does not assert any
federal claims but only state law claims. “The Sixth
Circuit ‘applies a strong presumption against the
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction once federal claims
have been dismissed - retaining residual jurisdiction
“only in cases where the interests of judicial economy
and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation outweigh our
concern over needlessly deciding state law
issues.”'” Southard v. Newcomb Oil
Co., No. 3:18-CV-803-CRS, 2019 WL 961988, at *3 (W.D.
Ky. Feb. 27, 2019) (quoting Packard Farmers Ins. Co. of
Columbus, Inc., 423 Fed.Appx. 580, 584 (6th Cir. 2011)).
Because the posture of this case, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the
Second Amended Complaint and will remand this matter to
Oldham Circuit Court. See Southard, 2019 WL 961988, at *3
(“This action has only been on the Court's docket
for approximately three months. Plaintiff filed his amended
complaint six days after Newcomb Oil removed the case. In
addition, no dispositive rulings have been issued and this
Court has not overseen discovery.” (citation omitted));
Skipper v. Clark, 150 F.Supp.3d 820, 828-29 (W.D.
Ky. 2015) (citation omitted) (remanding the case to state
court and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims following the dismissal of the
federal claims providing the basis for federal jurisdiction).
Defendant's Motions to Dismiss (DN 5, 19)
has moved to dismiss the allegations in the Complaint and
First Amended Complaint. (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, DN 5;
Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, DN 19). Because the Second Amended
Complaint subsumes the allegations in the prior complaints,
the Court will deny these motions as moot. See Herran
Props., LLC v. Lyon Cty. Fiscal Court, No.
5:17-CV-00107-GNS, 2017 WL 6377984, at *2 (citing Cedar
View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer, No. 5:05-CV-00782, 2006 WL
456482, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006)); Ky. Press