Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership

E.D. Kentucky

Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership

DecidedJune 6, 2024

Docket7:24-cv-00004

StatusUnknown

This text of Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership (Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership, (E.D. Ky. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PIKEVILLE DIVISION

SHERRI BARATH, CASE NO. 7:24-CV-4-KKC Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER WALMART STORES EAST, L.P. and SHIELDS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE, LLC, Defendants. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sherri Barath’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (DE 8.) Barath seeks to add Todd Taylor d/b/a Triple T Limited Liability Company and Triple T Limited Liability Company as defendants to this action. Defendant Walmart Stores East, L.P. (hereinafter, “Walmart”) objects to this amendment on grounds of futility. The Court will deny Barath’s motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that: “[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” “One reason to deny leave is futility of amendment.” Parchman v. SLM Corporation, 896 F.3d 728, 737 (6th Cir. 2018). “A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Id. at 738 (quotation marks omitted). The Court agrees with Walmart that Barath’s proposed amendment is futile. Barath brings an action for personal injury against the defendants. Actions for personal injury must be brought within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued. KRS § 413.140(1)(a). Here, Barath asserts that her injury took place on December 23, 2022. (DE 1-3 at 3-4.) She originally filed this action on December 14, 2023, within the statute of limitations, and now seeks to add new defendants through her February 9, 2024 motion for leave to file an amended complaint. But “the precedent of this circuit clearly holds that an amendment which adds a new party creates a new cause of action and there is no relation back to the original filing for purposes of limitations.” Asher v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc., 596 F.3d 313, 318 (6th Cir. 2010). Adding the proposed defendants to the action is futile because the statute of limitations has run and the amendment would not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Barath’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (DE 8) is DENIED. This 6 day of June, 2024. Fone Battelle a A es | Bg. KAREN K. CALDWELL eae? | (‘UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE i = EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PIKEVILLE DIVISION

SHERRI BARATH, CASE NO. 7:24-CV-4-KKC Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER WALMART STORES EAST, L.P. and SHIELDS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE, LLC, Defendants. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sherri Barath’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (DE 8.) Barath seeks to add Todd Taylor d/b/a Triple T Limited Liability Company and Triple T Limited Liability Company as defendants to this action. Defendant Walmart Stores East, L.P. (hereinafter, “Walmart”) objects to this amendment on grounds of futility. The Court will deny Barath’s motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that: “[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” “One reason to deny leave is futility of amendment.” Parchman v. SLM Corporation, 896 F.3d 728, 737 (6th Cir. 2018). “A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Id. at 738 (quotation marks omitted). The Court agrees with Walmart that Barath’s proposed amendment is futile. Barath brings an action for personal injury against the defendants. Actions for personal injury must be brought within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued. KRS § 413.140(1)(a). Here, Barath asserts that her injury took place on December 23, 2022. (DE 1-3 at 3-4.) She originally filed this action on December 14, 2023, within the statute of limitations, and now seeks to add new defendants through her February 9, 2024 motion for leave to file an amended complaint. But “the precedent of this circuit clearly holds that an amendment which adds a new party creates a new cause of action and there is no relation back to the original filing for purposes of limitations.” Asher v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc., 596 F.3d 313, 318 (6th Cir. 2010). Adding the proposed defendants to the action is futile because the statute of limitations has run and the amendment would not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Barath’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (DE 8) is DENIED. This 6 day of June, 2024. Fone Battelle a A es | Bg. KAREN K. CALDWELL eae? | (‘UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE i = EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barath v. Walmart Stores East, Limited Partnership, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barath-v-walmart-stores-east-limited-partnership-kyed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack