Gischel v. City of Reynoldsburg, Ohio

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LORA J. GISCHEL,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:24-cv-4124

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

CITY OF REYNOLDSBURG,

OHIO, et al.,

Defendants,

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc.

14). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to detach

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14-2), and file it separately on the docket. Defendants

are ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint by April 15,

2025. If Defendants file a responsive dispositive motion, Plaintiff’s response is due within ten

(10) days of the motion being filed. Any reply is due seven (7) days thereafter.

I. BACKGROUND

As this case currently stands, Plaintiff Lora Gischel alleges that Defendants the City of

Reynoldsburg, Ohio and Stephen M. Cicak violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights

and placed her in a false light in violation of Ohio common law when they retaliated against her

and initiated her termination from her civil service position. (See generally Doc. 1).

Previously, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. (Doc. 7). Instead

of filing a response to that motion, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time. (Doc. 11). She

asked the Court to extend her deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss to track with her

deadline to file a motion to amend, which was February 28, 2025. (Id.; see also Doc. 10

(scheduling order)). To justify her request, Plaintiff averred that she intended to amend her

complaint with claims under Title VII and the Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112 when she received

a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)—a letter she

requested the day before she filed the motion. (Doc. 11 at 3). The Court granted the motion but

warned Plaintiff that it would not stall this case for an indefinite amount of time while Plaintiff

waits for a letter she only recently requested. (Doc. 13 at 2).

On February 28, Plaintiff filed this motion, seeking to amend her complaint. (Doc. 14).

The Court expedited briefing. (Docs. 15, 17). The Court also required the parties to provide an

update on discovery. (Doc. 19; see also Doc. 20 (joint status report stating the parties conferred

on a discovery plan moving forward)). Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is ripe for review. (Docs. 16,

18).

II. STANDARD

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party seeks

leave of court to file an amended pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so

requires.” This rule, which allows a liberal policy in favor of granting amendments, “reinforce[s]

the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.’”

Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 936 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah,

790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)). In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such

factors as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failures to

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371

U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion argues that the Court should grant her leave to amend under the liberal

amendment policy of Rule 15. (Doc. 14 at 3–4). Notably, though, Plaintiff still has not received

her right to sue letter from the EEOC. (Doc. 14 at 3). So, the proposed amendment does not

include claims under Title VII or the Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. (See Doc. 14-2 (proposed

amended complaint)). Rather, it “adds and/or clarifies” the allegations in her original complaint.

(Doc. 18 at 3). Plaintiff says that she still “intends to file a Second Amended Complaint upon

receipt of the Right to Sue Letter.” (Doc. 14 at 3). And she blames the delay alternatively on the

“mass layoffs to the [Department of Justice]”; the “slow, painstaking procedure for obtaining a

notice of right to sue” as a result of the 2021 Ohio Employment Law Uniformity Act; and “the

implementation of electronic filing of charges.” (Doc. 14 at 3; Doc. 18 at 6–7).

Defendants oppose the Motion. (Doc. 16). They argue that Plaintiff’s amendment is an

attempt to skirt the Court’s scheduling order and stall this case. (Id. at 1–2). As such, they name

the First Amended Complaint merely a “placeholder” and a “backdoor request for another

extension of time.” (Id. at 2). Additionally, they argue that her proposed amendment would be

futile because it does not cure the legal deficiencies raised in the pending motion to dismiss. (Id.

at 2–5 (alleging that the amended complaint does not cure deficiencies related to vicarious liability,

qualified immunity, ripeness, and the statute of limitations for her Section 1983 claims; or the

pleading requirements for her state law claim)). And the amendment “perpetuates delay and

creates prejudice.” (Id. at 5–7). Defendants ask that that Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to amend and order her to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. (Id.).

The Court agrees with Defendants that the sequence of events leading up to Plaintiff’s

Motion, when considered with the Court’s previous order, is suspect. (See Doc. 16-1 (Plaintiff’s

counsel’s email sent on February 24 asking Defendant to agree to an extension of time to file the

amended complaint)). Ultimately, though, the Federal Rules favor granting leave to amend to cure

pleading deficiencies. And at this stage, the Undersigned must determine only “whether the futility

of an amendment is so obvious that it should be disallowed.” Bear v. Delaware Cnty., No. 2:14-

cv-43, 2015 WL 1954451, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2015); see also Brown v. Worthington Steel,

Inc., 211 F.R.D. 320, 323 (S.D. Ohio 2002) (discussing that courts will not “ordinarily consider

the merits of a proposed amended complaint in ruling on a motion for leave to amend unless it

appears to be frivolous”). On its face, Plaintiff’s amended complaint clears this low hurdle.

Further evaluating Defendants’ arguments would require the Undersigned to address the merits of

Plaintiffs’ claims. Moraine Prop., LLC v. Ethyl Corp., No. 3:07-cv-229, 2009 WL 10679543, at

*1 (S.D. Ohio June 22, 2009) (noting procedural complications that arise when parties raise futility

arguments for a magistrate judge’s ruling). The better course is to permit amendment and allow

Plaintiff’s claims to be tested on dispositive motions before the District Judge. Bear, 2015 WL

1954451, at *3 (saying “it is the better exercise of discretion to permit the amendment” and allow

the parties to brief motions to dismiss); Durthaler v. Accts. Receivable Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-

1068, 2011 WL 5008552, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 20, 2011) (noting the Court “has the discretion to

grant a party leave to amend a complaint, even where the amended pleading might ultimately be

dismissed”).

The Court now turns to Defendants’ arguments about prejudice and delay. Essentially,

they contend that because Plaintiff insists that she will amend her complaint again, allowing her

to amend now wastes time and resources on discovery. But this argument is better considered if

or when Plaintiff brings another motion to amend. As it stands, the parties would be required to

engage in discovery on substantially similar claims whether or not the Court granted Plaintiff leave

to amend. (Compare Doc. 1 with Doc. 14-2). And, ultimately, Defendants’ concerns about delay

can be addressed with expedited briefing on any motion filed in response to the amended

complaint.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 14). The Clerk is DIRECTED

to detach Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14-2), and file it separately on the docket.

Defendants are ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint by

April 15, 2025. If Defendants file a responsive dispositive motion, Plaintiff’s response is due

within ten (10) days of the motion being filed. Any reply is due seven (7) days thereafter.

Plaintiff in particular is WARNED that barring extenuating circumstances, the Court will not

extend these deadlines.

Additionally, the Court declines at this time to decide whether Plaintiff may file a second

amended complaint. Plaintiff’s deadline under the scheduling order to file motions to amend has

passed. (Doc. 10 (setting the deadline to February 28, 2025)). As such, any future motion for

leave to amend must meet the bars contemplated in both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and

16. Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 909 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Once the scheduling order’s deadline

passes, a plaintiff first must show good cause under Rule 16(b) for failure earlier to seek leave to

amend before a court will consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a).”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

(Doc. 14) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to detach Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 14-2), and file it separately on the docket. Defendants are ORDERED to answer

or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint by April 15, 2025. If Defendants file a

responsive dispositive motion, Plaintiff’s response is due within ten (10) days of the motion

being filed. Any reply is due seven (7) days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 1, 2025 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE