eNotes: Liability – September 2023 – Washington, DC
September 01, 2023
SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Washington, DC Case Summary
Pressley v. Mgmt. Support Tech., Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141625
Decided: August 14, 2023
A pro se plaintiff’s Motion to amend a Complaint is likely to be granted if the Amended Complaint presents a triable issue and the Defendant fails to show prejudice.
Plaintiff was a former employee of Defendant. Per the Defendant, Plaintiff was terminated on December 13, 2019, for failure to comply with policies and procedures related to the removal of work equipment from the workplace. Plaintiff alleged he was terminated due to discrimination and retaliation.
Plaintiff’s initial pro se Complaint was filed on June 17, 2022, in the D.C. Superior Court. On August 1, 2022, Defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On August 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff responded by filing his First Amended Complaint on August 16, 2022. On August 30, 2022, Defendant filed its second Motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff responded by filing his Second Amended Complaint on September 13, 2022. Defendant responded to the Second Amended Complaint by filing a Motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint citing Plaintiff’s failure to seek their consent or the Court’s leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. Three days later Plaintiff filed a Motion for leave to file his Second Amended Complaint. Defendant responded by filing its third Motion to dismiss.
The Court began its analysis by granting Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint. The Court cited Pappas v. District of Columbia, and stated “[w]here ‘the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.’” 513 F. Supp. 3d 64, 100 (D.D.C. 2021). The Court acknowledged the Plaintiff’s procedural failures complicated this matter, but highlighted that the matter was still “in its infancy” and that Defendants had failed to show that they suffered any prejudice as a result. The Court then denied Defendant’s Motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint and its Motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as moot. Finally, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. This case highlights the extent to which courts allow plaintiffs, especially pro se plaintiffs, to amend allegedly defective complaints.
Questions about this case can be directed to Marcelo Perez at (202) 945-9503 or email@example.com.