Mattiaccio v. Dha Group, Inc.
293 F.R.D. 229
D.D.C.2013Background
- Mattiaccio, pro se, moved to amend his complaint to add eleven new claims and revise factual allegations months before discovery closes.
- The court originally scheduled May 27, 2013 deadline to amend and Oct. 11, 2013 discovery closure; amendments were sought Aug. 9, 2013.
- Defendants opposed only some new claims (disability discrimination and wrongful termination) and revised allegations.
- Court found it appropriate to allow amendments based on evidence obtained after July 10, 2013, but denied revisions based on pre-deadline information.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend, and granted expedited ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted for new claims based on post-deadline evidence | Mattiaccio argues post-deadline evidence warrants amendment | Defendants contend delay and need for extensive new discovery preclude amendment | Granted in part for closely related, post-deadline claims; denied for largely new, unrelated claims |
| Disability discrimination and wrongful termination viability | Plaintiff asserts these claims under DC Act and common law | Defendants argue no knowledge of disability and policy remedies exist | Disability claim denied; wrongful termination claim denied |
| Allowance of FCRA claim against Blitz based on new deposition testimony | New evidence links Blitz to the May 2012 background check | Not disputed; no opposition to adding Blitz claim | Permitted; close relation to existing FCRA claims and limited discovery needed |
| Defamation, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference claims against Fisher/Husband | New information from email and deposition justifies adding claims | Claims against Fisher’s husband require extensive new discovery and relation back may be improper | Claims against Karen Fisher allowed; claims against David Fisher denied for timeliness and scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Crandall v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 146 F.3d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employer awareness of disability required for disability discrimination)
- Nolting v. Nat’l Capital Grp., Inc., 621 A.2d 1387 (D.C. 1993) (public policy exception to at-will employment limitations not applicable where statutory remedy exists)
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (narrow exception to at-will termination not available when statute provides remedy)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (amendment with new theory based on different facts does not relate back)
- In re Interbank Funding Corp. Securities Litig., 629 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (freely grant leave to amend absent undue delay or prejudice)
- Belizan v. Herson, 434 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (leave to amend should be freely given absent specific prejudicial factors)
- Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (trial court should freely grant leave to amend when justice requires)