Opinion
1:00CV01093
December 13, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on a Motion to Amend Amended Complaint and Court Records, filed by Plaintiff Debbie D. Kimes, and a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Laboratory Corporation of America. Plaintiff, actingpro se, asserts a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
After consideration of the pleadings filed by Plaintiff and Laboratory Corporation of America, the court finds as follows:
A. The court has a duty to be "`especially solicitous of civil rights plaintiffs'" and recognizes that this obligation "`must be heightened when a civil rights plaintiff appears pro se.'" Marshburn v. Postmaster General, 678 F. Supp. 1182, 1184 (D. Md. 1988) (quoting Gordon v. Leeks, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)).
B. Plaintiff's naming of "Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc." as defendant was a misnomer. No prejudice will result to Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings by allowing Plaintiff to correct her pleadings to amend Defendant's name to read "Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings."
C. Granting Plaintiff's motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) will serve the interests of justice. It will neither prejudice Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, nor result from undue delay on the part of Plaintiff. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 (1962).
D. The claim which Plaintiff seeks to assert in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings received, through its registered agent for service of process, timely notice of this suit, and knew or should have known that Ms. Kimes, its employee and party-opponent in other employment discrimination litigation before this court, would have brought the action against it but for a mistake. The amended pleading sought by Plaintiff therefore meets the standard for relation back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(2) and (3).
On November 24, 1999, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a complaint, captioned Debbie D. Kimes v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc., No. 1:99CV1038, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings filed pleadings in that case, which was decided less than six weeks before Ms. Kimes served process in the case now before the court. In that earlier case, the court noted that "Defendant [Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings] stated . . . that Plaintiff improperly referred to Defendant as Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc." (Debbie D. Kimes v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, No. 1:99CV1038, Mem. Op., 1/18/2001 at n. 1.)
The court notes that Laboratory Corporation of America and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings are related entities. While it makes no specific findings on this issue, the court notes the following: a review of public records available on the website of the North Carolina Secretary of State reveals that the two entities share multiple common officers and directors as well as a common registered agent for service of process; a review of public records available on the website of the United States Patent and Trademark Office reveals that Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings owns the service mark "Laboratory Corporation of America;" and a review of the two cases recently brought before this court by Ms. Kimes (the instant case, No. 1:00CV1093, and the earlier case referred to in footnote 1, No. 1:99CV1038) reveals that in those matters the two entities shared common outside counsel in Ms. Julie C. Theall.
E. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Laboratory Corporation of America cannot be considered by this court, as Laboratory Corporation of America is not a party to this case and therefore lacks standing to bring the motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. That Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Amended Complaint and Court Records [13] is granted to the extent that Plaintiff may amend her complaint to correct the Defendant's name, more clearly state a claim, request injunctive relief, and reflect mitigation of damages. Such amendment shall be filed no later than December 26, 2002.
2. That Plaintiff's amended complaint, described in paragraph one above, shall relate back to the date of the original pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).
3. That the Motion to Dismiss [6] brought by Laboratory Corporation of America is dismissed. This dismissal does not prevent Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings from filing a timely motion to dismiss.
4. That Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings shall have up to and including January 20, 2003, within which to respond to Plaintiff's amended complaint, described in paragraph one.