Summary
holding that a party is permitted to amend their complaint once, as a matter of course, before a responsible pleading is filed, where a motion to dismiss was not a responsive
Summary of this case from R. Keating & Sons, Inc. v. HuberOpinion
C.A. No.: S14C-10-015 RFS
03-27-2015
RE: Trina R. Gumbs v. Delaware Department of Labor
Tasha M. Stevens, Esquire Fuqua, Yori and Willard, P.A. 26 The Circle P.O. Box 250 Georgetown, DE 19947 Oliver J. Cleary, Esquire Kenisha L. Ringgold, Esquire State of Delaware Department of Justice Deputy Attorneys General 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801
RICHARD F. STOKES JUDGE Tasha M. Stevens, Esquire
Fuqua, Yori and Willard, P.A.
26 The Circle
P.O. Box 250
Georgetown, DE 19947
Oliver J. Cleary, Esquire
Kenisha L. Ringgold, Esquire
State of Delaware
Department of Justice
Deputy Attorneys General
820 N. French Street, 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Dear Counsel:
In this case, Plaintiff asserts the Delaware Department of Labor, allegedly, engaged in unemployment discrimination and violated the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"). A motion to dismiss was filed, and the parties briefed their legal positions while the Court reserved decision. In the interim, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint removing the cause of action regarding EPA violations, Count II. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed suit in Federal District Court seeking relief under the EPA.
See generally, Compl.; see also, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; 29 U.S.C. § 203.
See generally, Defs.' Mot. To Dismiss.
See, Am. Compl.
Trina R. Gumbs v. State of Del. Dep't. of Labor, C.A. No. 1:2015cv00190 (D. Del 2015).
As for the present, I find the broad language of Rule 15(a) permits a party to amend their complaint once, as a matter of course, before a responsive pleading is filed. Upon consideration of Stoppel v. Henry, a Superior Court Case directly analyzing this procedural matter, I agree with the conclusion a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. This principle is further bolstered by how parallel Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been interpreted.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a) (providing "[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served").
2011 WL 55911, at *3 (Del. Super. Jan. 4, 2011).
The point was explored in depth for the first time in the Stopple decision. See generally, Stoppel, 2011 WL 55911. Two earlier Superior Court cases which found to the contrary and are cited in Stoppel, Eaton v. Raven Transport, Inc. and Mell v. New Castle Cty., were driven by more substantial matters and the procedural issues were essentially uncontested. 2010 WL 424458, at *4 (Del. Super. Jan. 26, 2010); 835 A.2d 141, 144 at n.4 (Del. Super. Sept. 9, 2003); see also, Stoppel, 2011 WL 55911 at *3.
See, Stoppel at n. 7.
Consequently, the only remaining claim this Court must consider is whether the Defendant engaged in unemployment discrimination, Count I. This cause of action turns on whether state merit rules are preempted. As such, Count I presents a question of law.
See generally, Am. Compl.
See e.g., Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 281 (1987) (stating "in those areas where Congress has not completely displaced state regulation, federal law may nonetheless pre-empt state law to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law") (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)).
Id.
Although, the motion to dismiss is moot and Defendant must file an answer, Defendant may elect to pursue a judgment on the pleadings. The standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is almost identical to the standard for a motion to dismiss. If that course is chosen, the parties should supplement their earlier memoranda.
See e.g., Brisk v. City of Miami Beach, Fla ., 1989 WL 35597 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 1989).
See e.g., Velocity Exp., Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc., 2009 WL 406807, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 4, 2009) (finding when relief is sought through a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the motion is in the form of dismissal the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review essentially applies).
--------
Lastly, in addition to the cases cited more information is required on the preemption argument. I would suggest the parties confer and submit a stipulated schedule to that end. Thank you. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Richard F. Stokes
Hon. Richard F. Stokes