Dalton v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00668
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 25-cv-00668-RMR-CYC

CHARLES DALTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________________

Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint and Join Party, ECF No. 44, in which the plaintiff states that he seeks to “join[ ] a new Defendant, American Express National Bank (‘American Express’), pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 20(a)(2) because they assert common question[s] of law and facts to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 44 at 1. The plaintiff attaches a proposed amended complaint that adds American Express as a defendant and eliminates defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”). ECF No. 44-2. The motion does not discuss the dismissal of Experian nor does it cite to any authority through which the plaintiff seeks to substitute American Express for Experian. Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 allows for joinder of defendants, but not substitution of defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 allows for substitution of parties in certain circumstances, but the motion does not invoke the rule nor does it provide a basis for the Court to apply that rule here. In addition, the motion seeks relief under Rule 20 but relies on authority relating to motions to amend under Rule 15. It is not clear under what authority the plaintiff actually seeks relief. What is clear is that the invoked authority cannot form the basis for granting the motion. Specifically, the plaintiff relies on Rule 20(a)(2), which allows for joinder of a defendant if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against [the defendants] jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

If the amended complaint is accepted by the Court, there cannot be any relief sought against the defendants “jointly” or “severally” as there will be only one defendant. As a result, the motion cannot be granted under Rule 20. What it appears the plaintiff wishes to do is add American Express as a defendant and eliminate Experian as a defendant. The applicable rule is Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) for the addition of claims. That rule allows for amendment of pleadings with the Court’s leave, which should be given freely when justice so requires, meaning that it should be refused “only on a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” Duncan v. Manager, Dep’t of Safety, City & Cnty. of Denver, 397 F.3d 1300, 1315 (10th Cir. 2005); see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Court has not been provided any information from which it finds that leave to amend should be refused. As for the deletion of Experian as a defendant, the applicable rule appears to be Rule 41(a)(2). See Transwitch Corp. v. Galazar Networks, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 2d 284, 289 & n.5 (D. Mass. 2005) (teaching that “[r]eview is . . . properly gauged under Rule 41(a)(2)” when a plaintiff “seeks to drop all of the counts in the original complaint” by way of amendment); see also Williams v. St. Paul Travelers Cos., No. CV 05-B-2297-W, 2007 WL 9717430, at *3 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 26, 2007) (noting that “seeking the court’s permission to substitute” one defendant for another “on the ground that” the new defendant “was the proper defendant . . . operates as a motion to voluntarily dismiss” the existing defendant). Accordingly, the decision on that portion of the motion must be a recommendation rather than an order. See Transwitch Corp., 377 F. Supp 2d at 288 n.4. Nevertheless, with the motion being unopposed, there appears to be little reason not to grant it, since “[t]he ‘principal consideration is whether the dismissal would prejudice the defendant,’” id. at 289 (quoting Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 129 (Sth Cir. 1985)), and Experian articulates no such prejudice here. For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint and Join Party, ECF No. 44, be GRANTED and that the Court accept the proposed amended complaint, ECF No. 44-2, for filing.! Entered and dated this 21st day of May, 2025, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

Cyrus Y. Chung United States Magistrate Judge

' Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party’s failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). Finally, all parties must consult and comply with the District Judge’s practice standards for any specific requirements concerning the filing and briefing of objections.