Lexan McDowell v. iCallidus, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland resolves Plaintiff Lexan McDowell’s renewed motion for leave to amend her complaint and related motions to strike. The court grants leave to assert Title VII racial-discrimination and Maryland constructive-discharge claims, while denying leave as to proposed retaliation, breach-of-contract, unjust-enrichment, and fraudulent-misrepresentation claims as futile. The court denies the motion to strike the proposed amended complaint but strikes Plaintiff’s untimely reply.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed claims were clearly insufficient to state plausible claims for relief. The retaliation allegations did not identify protected activity concerning unlawful discrimination; the contract allegations did not identify a breached contractual obligation; the unjust-enrichment allegations did not identify a benefit conferred on Defendant and were undermined by Plaintiff's admission that she was compensated; and the fraud allegations did not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.
2. Leave to amend was granted as to the proposed racial-discrimination and constructive-discharge claims because the court could not find that either claim was clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face at the amendment stage.
3. The motion to strike the proposed amended complaint was denied because Defendant did not establish bad faith, scandalous material, or unduly repulsive or derogatory language warranting the drastic remedy of striking the pleading.
4. The court declined to find excusable neglect and struck Plaintiff's untimely reply because the one-week delay lacked an adequate justification, caused some delay in resolving the motion, and was not sufficiently explained by the government shutdown or general family responsibilities.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to add proposed claims for Title VII racial discrimination, Title VII retaliation, constructive discharge, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
2. Whether Defendant's motion to strike the proposed amended complaint should be granted based on alleged bad faith or prejudicial amendment.
3. Whether Plaintiff's one-week-late reply should be accepted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) based on excusable neglect.

Disposition

other