United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MICHAEL A. SHIPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Robert
Buechele, Anthony Degner, Robert Chetirkin, Salvatore
D'Amico, and Trevor Beatty's (collectively
"Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Maurice
Jackson's ("Plaintiff) Complaint pursuant to Federal
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff opposed
and filed a Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend. (ECF No. 8.)
Defendants replied, and do not oppose Plaintiffs
Cross-Motion. (ECF No. 11.) The Court has carefully
considered the parties" submissions and decides the
matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule
78.1. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses
Plaintiffs Complaint, administratively terminates
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and grants Plaintiffs
Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend.
case arises out of Plaintiffs employment with the New Jersey
Department of Corrections O'NJDOC") at its Central
Reception and Assignment Facility ("CRAF")- (Compl.
¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is a Correctional Police
Sergeant at CRAF and has worked for NJDOC since 2000.
(Id. ¶ 11.) On December 16, 2018, Plaintiff
filed the instant suit against Defendants alleging, inter
alia, racial discrimination, hostile work environment,
and retaliation in violation of the following: Title VII, 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000e-2(a)(1), 3(a); the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1
et seq. (“NJLAD”); and the New Jersey
Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2 et seq.
("NJCRA"). (Compl. ¶¶ 40-69.)
15] embodies a liberal approach to pleading" Arthur
v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 2006). A
party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
before being served with a responsive pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1)(A). Otherwise, 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).
deciding whether to grant a motion for leave to amend
pursuant to Rule 15(a), w'[a] general
presumption exists in favor of allowing a party to amend its
pleadings." Del Sontro v. Cendant Corp. Inc.,
223 F.Supp.2d 563, 576 (D.N.J. 2002) (citing Boileau v.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.. 730 F.2d 929, 938 (3d Cir. 1984),
cert, denied 469 U.S. 871 (1984)). Furthermore, Rule
15 requires that "the leave sought ... be "freely
given [when justice so requires].'"' Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). "If the
underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff
may be a proper subject of relief, he [or she] ought to be
afforded an opportunity to test [the] claim on the
merits." Id. Rule 15 "ensure[s] that an
inadvertent error in pleading will not preclude a party from
securing relief on the merits of a claim."
Arthur. 434 F.3d at 202 (citing Foman, 371
U.S. at 182).
Rule 15 requires that leave to amend be freely given,
“a district court has the discretion to deny this
request if it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving
party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motives. (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the
amendment would prejudice the other party." Lake v.
Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 373 (3d Cir. 2000). Here, the
Court has no reason to believe there is any delay or bad
faith motivation, nor does the Court find that amendment
would be futile or prejudice Defendants. Rather,
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss identified a deficiency in
Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiff now seeks to cure that
deficiency, and Defendants do not oppose. (Defs.' Reply
Br. 2 n. l.) The Court, therefore, finds good cause to allow
Plaintiff the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.
8th day of August 2019 ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed, and
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is
TERMINATED AS MOOT.
Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 8-1) is