Matthews v. NurtureSchool LLC

E.D. Arkansas

Matthews v. NurtureSchool LLC

DecidedApril 26, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-00244

StatusUnknown

This text of Matthews v. NurtureSchool LLC (Matthews v. NurtureSchool LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthews v. NurtureSchool LLC, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE MATTHEWS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:23-cv-244-DPM

NURTURESCHOOL, LLC, also known as Sharp Childcare; JOSH WAYNE SHARP; TIFFANY SHARP and SUN STAR INSURANCE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Matthews’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, Doc. 28, is granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The amended complaint drops existing claims and doesn’t add new ones. It also adds two new defendants, a few more factual allegations, and two exhibits. Matthews hasn’t acted in bad faith or for purposes of undue delay. And the defendants haven't identified any unfair prejudice. There’s no good reason to deny Matthews leave to amend. Hillesheim v. Myron's Cards & Gifts, Inc., 897 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2018). 2. The defendants’ point about the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services hearing transcript is noted. But, based on the cases they cite and ARK. CODE ANN. § 11-10-314(a)’s text, the transcript presents admissibility questions for another day. See Doc. 52 in Burdue v. International Paper Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-2173-PKH (W.D. Ark. 22 February 2016) (motion in limine); Doc. 38 in Hess v.

Abels, Case No. 5:11-cv-249-KBG (E.D. Ark. 6 September 2012) (summary judgment record). At this stage, the exhibits to Matthews’s amended complaint are only treated as allegations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2002).

Matthews’s motion to amend her complaint, Doc. 28, is granted. Please file the clean version by 3 May 2024. The Sharp defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 12, is denied without prejudice as mooted by the amended complaint. Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002). The defendants’ amended answers or Rule 12(b) motions are due by 24 May 2024. So Ordered. Pyne oll D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge ple Agil_ awat

-2-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE MATTHEWS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:23-cv-244-DPM

NURTURESCHOOL, LLC, also known as Sharp Childcare; JOSH WAYNE SHARP; TIFFANY SHARP and SUN STAR INSURANCE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Matthews’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, Doc. 28, is granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The amended complaint drops existing claims and doesn’t add new ones. It also adds two new defendants, a few more factual allegations, and two exhibits. Matthews hasn’t acted in bad faith or for purposes of undue delay. And the defendants haven't identified any unfair prejudice. There’s no good reason to deny Matthews leave to amend. Hillesheim v. Myron's Cards & Gifts, Inc., 897 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2018). 2. The defendants’ point about the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services hearing transcript is noted. But, based on the cases they cite and ARK. CODE ANN. § 11-10-314(a)’s text, the transcript presents admissibility questions for another day. See Doc. 52 in Burdue v. International Paper Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-2173-PKH (W.D. Ark. 22 February 2016) (motion in limine); Doc. 38 in Hess v.

Abels, Case No. 5:11-cv-249-KBG (E.D. Ark. 6 September 2012) (summary judgment record). At this stage, the exhibits to Matthews’s amended complaint are only treated as allegations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2002).

Matthews’s motion to amend her complaint, Doc. 28, is granted. Please file the clean version by 3 May 2024. The Sharp defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 12, is denied without prejudice as mooted by the amended complaint. Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002). The defendants’ amended answers or Rule 12(b) motions are due by 24 May 2024. So Ordered. Pyne oll D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge ple Agil_ awat

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Matthews v. NurtureSchool LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-nurtureschool-llc-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack