Jessica Coleman, et al. v. Robert Telles, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00930
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jessica Coleman, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00930-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND 5 vs. (ECF NO. 131) 6 Robert Telles, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 Pending before the Court is counterclaimant Telles’ (“Telles”) Motion to Amend Counterclaim 9 (ECF No. 131) (“Motion”). For good cause shown and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the 10 Motion. 11 DISCUSSION 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 This is a case arising from alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14 2000e et seq., Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and related Nevada state laws. In sum, 15 plaintiffs allege sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, hostile work 16 environment, and retaliation. 17 Telles filed his original counterclaims against Plaintiffs. See generally ECF No. 31. 18 Plaintiffs/counter-defendants (“plaintiffs”) moved to dismiss Telles’ counterclaims. See generally ECF 19 No. 32. The Court issued an Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, with Telles’ 20 claims being dismissed, in whole or in part, with leave to amend. See ECF No. 45 at 10. Telles then filed 21 his Amended Counterclaim bringing forth: (1) abuse of process, (2) intentional infliction of emotional 22 distress, (3) civil conspiracy, and (4) slander per se counterclaims against plaintiffs. See generally ECF 23 No. 51. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Telles’ Amended Counterclaim, which the Court granted and denied 24 in part, allowing his civil conspiracy and slander per se counterclaims to proceed. ECF No. 56. 25 1 1 As plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss was pending, Telles moved to amend his counterclaim (“prior 2 Amend Motion”) to add Kimberly McMahon (“McMahon”) as a counter-defendant on his civil 3 conspiracy counterclaim (ECF No. 93). The undersigned Magistrate Judge found that adding McMahon 4 in the counter-complaint was futile under the facts alleged in the proposed counterclaim and denied 5 Telles’ prior Amend Motion without prejudice. See ECF No. 118. Telles objected to the undersigned 6 Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 118). ECF No. 119. The District Judge denied Telles’ Objection and 7 affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s decision. ECF No. 128. Telles then filed this Motion (ECF No. 131) 8 again seeking to add McMahon as a counter-defendant in his proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9 131, Ex. D), which the Court finds is sufficiently pled and not futile, and which plaintiffs do not oppose 10 (ECF No. 134). 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Generally, a party may amend its pleadings “as a matter of course” within 21 days of serving it 13 or within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 15(a)(1). Otherwise, amendments are only permitted “with the opposing party’s written consent or the 15 court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when 16 justice so requires.” Id. Generally, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 15(a) should be “applied with 17 extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). “Five 18 factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue 19 delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously 20 amended the complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 21 Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 22 1052 (“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 23 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 24 allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 25 2 1 (1962)). “In exercising this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to 2 facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 3 942 F.2d 617, 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 4 Ultimately, there is considerable deference to amendment and the analysis “should be performed with all 5 inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 6 1999). 7 III. ANALYSIS 8 Telles seeks to add McMahon as a counter-defendant on his civil conspiracy counterclaim. ECF 9 No. 131. Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion, which constitutes consent to granting the Motion. See LR 10 7-2(d). 11 The Court also finds good cause exists to grant the Motion in this case. There is no apparent bad 12 faith or undue delay in the Motion. The amendments do not appear to prejudice plaintiff. This would be 13 the first time that the Court would be granting Telles’ request to amend his counterclaim. 14 Furthermore, adding McMahon as a counter-defendant is no longer futile. In Telles’ prior proposed 15 amended complaint, he did not allege sufficient facts that McMahon committed civil conspiracy. In the 16 current proposed counter-complaint (ECF No. 131, Ex. D), Telles now alleges that plaintiffs Goodwin 17 and Reid convinced McMahon to “corroborate their false allegation of a bribery scheme in exchange for 18 a restored business relationship with the PAO[.]” ECF No. 131, Ex. D, ¶ 108. This agreement allegedly 19 occurred “prior to [McMahon] meeting with [Agent] Jappe [where McMahon made the allegedly false 20 claims against Telles.]” ECF No. 131, Ex. D at 12. Telles thus properly alleges a counterclaim for civil 21 conspiracy against McMahon. See On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCart-Pollack, No. 2:15–cv– 22 01576–MMD–VCF, 2016 WL 5796858, at *3 (D. Nev. September 30, 2016) (citation omitted) (stating 23 that a pleader must show a “(1) commission of an underlying tort; and (2) agreement between the 24 defendants to commit a tort” to establish a claim for civil conspiracy); see also GES, Inc. v. Corbitt, 117 25 3 1 || Nev. 265, 270-71, 21 P.3d 11, 15 (Nev. 2001) (citations omitted) (stating to prevail in a civil conspiracy 2 || action “a plaintiff must prove an agreement between the tortfeasors . . . [and] it is essential that the 3 || conduct of each tortfeasor be in itself tortious.”). Therefore, Telles’ proposed Amended Complaint is not 4 || futile and good cause exists to grant his Motion. 5 ACCORDINGLY, 6 IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. The Motion to Amend Counterclaim (ECF No. 131) is GRANTED. 2. Telles shall file the proposed amended counterclaim by no later than February 9, 2026. 9 10 DATED: January 30, 2026. D IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 __f£¢4 + dh Hox/Maximiliaixo Dj Couy#ilier, III 15 Yitited States/ viagist/ateJudge yey 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25