Piliponskiy v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND YEVGENTY PILIPONSKTY, * Plaintiff, . v. * CIVIL NO. JKB-25-0802 WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, *

_ Defendant. □ 3 . oo x * * * ke ke x * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Yevgeniy Piliponskiy brought suit against his former employer, Defendant Wal- Mart Stores East LP. (See generally ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend □ Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) The Motion will be granted. Plaintiff initially filed suit in March 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, which sought to dismiss Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) The Court granted the Motion, and dismissed those three counts. (ECF No. 11.) Thereafter, the Court issued a Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 15.) | Now pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff seeks to add detail to the operative pleading, but does not seek to add causes of action and has deleted those causes of action that the Court dismissed from the proposed amended complaint. (See generally id.) Plaintiff states that he attempted to secure Defendant’s consent and Defendant did. not provide its. consent. Ud.) Although Defendant apparently did not provide its consent, Defendant has not filed any opposition to the pending Motion, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Under Rule 15(a)(2), “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.”! “[T]he district court may deny leave to amend for reasons ‘such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.’” Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 464 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The Motion will be granted, and the amended complaint will be the operative pleading. The Court discerns no undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility here. This is underscored by the fact that Defendant has chosen not to file an opposition. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk SHALL DOCKET the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18-1) as the operative pleading. 3. Defendant SHALL FILE its Answer to the Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order.

DATED this Sf day of August, 2025. BY THE COURT:

James K. Bredar United States District Judge

Plaintiff filed his Motion on August 1, 2025, the deadline for moving for amendment of pleadings, per the Scheduling Order. (See ECF No. 15.) Thus, he is not required to show good cause for the amendment pursuant to Rule 16. See Cook v. Howard, 484 F. App’x 805, 814-15 (4th Cir. 2012).