BELL v. FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC

S.D. Indiana

BELL v. FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC

DecidedMarch 14, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-02026

StatusUnknown

This text of BELL v. FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC (BELL v. FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BELL v. FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC, (S.D. Ind. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

TINA BELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-02026-JPH-MPB ) FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, Tina Bell, brought this action in October 2022, alleging that her employer, Defendant Fast Track Physical Therapy, failed to pay her overtime wages and retaliated against her. Dkt. 1. When Fast Track moved to dismiss the complaint, dkt. 12, Ms. Bell filed an amended complaint as a matter of course, dkt. 16. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Fast Track then moved to dismiss the amended complaint, dkt. 21, and Ms. Bell filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, dkt. 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Fast Track opposes the motion for leave to amend, arguing that amendment would be futile. Dkt. 27. The amended complaint and the proposed second amended complaint are identical except the additional allegation that "Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment because she engaged in activity protected by the FLSA." Dkt. 26-2 at 7; see dkt. 16. The amended complaint already alleges that Ms. Bell had been terminated after complaining that she was not being paid for all of her hours. Dkt. 16 at 4. The proposed second amended complaint would therefore add only a legal conclusion, which is "not entitled to be assumed true at the pleading stage." Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 15 F.4th 831, 834 (7th Cir. 2021) ("Repetition cannot substitute for factual allegations."). The proposed second amended complaint therefore would not affect the viability of Ms. Bell's claims or the pending motion to dismiss, so the motion for leave to amend is DENIED. Dkt. [26]. Ms. Bell SHALL RESPOND to the motion to dismiss, dkt. 21, by March 24, 2023. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/14/2023

James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Distribution: Southern District of Indiana All electronically registered counsel.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

TINA BELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-02026-JPH-MPB ) FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, Tina Bell, brought this action in October 2022, alleging that her employer, Defendant Fast Track Physical Therapy, failed to pay her overtime wages and retaliated against her. Dkt. 1. When Fast Track moved to dismiss the complaint, dkt. 12, Ms. Bell filed an amended complaint as a matter of course, dkt. 16. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Fast Track then moved to dismiss the amended complaint, dkt. 21, and Ms. Bell filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, dkt. 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Fast Track opposes the motion for leave to amend, arguing that amendment would be futile. Dkt. 27. The amended complaint and the proposed second amended complaint are identical except the additional allegation that "Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment because she engaged in activity protected by the FLSA." Dkt. 26-2 at 7; see dkt. 16. The amended complaint already alleges that Ms. Bell had been terminated after complaining that she was not being paid for all of her hours. Dkt. 16 at 4. The proposed second amended complaint would therefore add only a legal conclusion, which is "not entitled to be assumed true at the pleading stage." Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 15 F.4th 831, 834 (7th Cir. 2021) ("Repetition cannot substitute for factual allegations."). The proposed second amended complaint therefore would not affect the viability of Ms. Bell's claims or the pending motion to dismiss, so the motion for leave to amend is DENIED. Dkt. [26]. Ms. Bell SHALL RESPOND to the motion to dismiss, dkt. 21, by March 24, 2023. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/14/2023

James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Distribution: Southern District of Indiana All electronically registered counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BELL v. FAST TRACK PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-fast-track-physical-therapy-llc-insd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack