Earp v. Federal Express Corporation - Motion to Amend Complaint Granted

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 7, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

James B. Earp v. Federal Express Corporation

District Court, N.D. West Virginia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00052

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.4K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

JAMES B. EARP,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-52
(KLEEH)

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 16]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff James B. Earp’s Motion
to Amend/Correct Complaint [ECF No. 16], which seeks leave to amend
Plaintiff’s Complaint to add a claim under the West Virginia Wage
Payment and Collection Act (“WVWPCA”) pursuant to W. Va. Code §
21-5-1. Defendant has not filed responsive motions opposing
Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend. For the reasons stated
herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff James Earp (“Plaintiff” or “Mr.
Earp”) filed suit against Defendant Federal Express Corporation
(“Defendant” or “FedEx”), alleging multiple claims relating to Mr.
Earp’s employment with FedEx. ECF No. 1. The Court granted
Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer [ECF
No. 6] on July 14, 2025, and the Defendant filed an Answer on July
31, 2025 [ECF No. 10].
On September 15, 2025, the Court issued its Scheduling Order,
which set forth that Amended Pleadings would be due by September
30, 2025. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff then filed the subject Motion to

Amend Complaint on September 30, 2025. ECF No. 16. Defendant did
not file any motion opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
Accordingly, this Motion is fully briefed and ripe for review.
II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND1

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff James Earp was allegedly
“constructively discharged” from his employment with FedEx.
Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶ 28. Mr. Earp worked for FedEx as a delivery
driver for over 37 years. Id. at ¶ 9. Earp alleges, due to his
deteriorating health, which included arthritis and other
conditions, he was effectively terminated from FedEx in June of
2023. Id. at ¶ 5, 9, 10. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims FedEx
failed to accommodate his conditions, and tried to force Plaintiff
out of his position with the company. Id. at ¶ 12, 13. Lastly,
Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff’s condition
to worsen and induced panic attacks. Id. at ¶ 14.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 permits a party to amend a
complaint “once as a matter of course” within 21 days after serving
the pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a

1 The following facts are taken from the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However,
“[t]he Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is within the
discretion of the Court. See Scott v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105, 121 (4th Cir. 2013). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court
of the United States has set forth factors for courts to consider
when applying Rule 15(a)(2). See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962); Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986). Courts should grant leave to amend unless the
amendment (1) “would be prejudicial to the opposing party,” (2)
“there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party,” or (3)
“the amendment would have been futile.” Johnson, 785 F.2d at 509 (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).

First, prejudice to the opposing party can result when a
proposed amendment raises a new legal theory that would require
the gathering and analysis of facts not already considered by the
opposing party. Id. at 510. Often, a finding of prejudice applies
when the amendment is offered “shortly before or during trial.”
Id. (citing Roberts v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 661 F.2d 796, 798 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted)).
Next, the Court considers whether the party seeking to amend
is doing so in bad faith. Bad faith amendments are “abusive” or
“made in order to secure some ulterior tactical advantage.” GSS
Props., Inc. v. Kendale Shopping Ctr., Inc., 119 F.R.D. 379, 381 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 1988) (citing 6 C. Wright & Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure, § 1487 (updated Apr. 2015))). In assessing
this factor, the court may consider the movant’s delay in seeking
the amendment but delay alone “is an insufficient reason to deny
the plaintiff's motion to amend.” Hart v. Hanover Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
No. 11-1619, 495 Fed. App’x 314 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted).
The third factor weighs against granting leave to amend when
amending the complaint would be futile. Johnson, 785 F.2d at 509 -
10. Even in the absence of prejudice and bad faith, a court should
still deny leave to amend when the amended complaint would not
survive a motion to dismiss, Perkins v. U.S., 55 F.3d 910, 917 (4th Cir. 1995), or “when the proposed amendment is clearly

insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Johnson, 785 F.2d at 510.
IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Earp seeks leave to amend his Complaint to add a
claim under the WVWPCA. ECF No. 17, at 3. Plaintiff contends
that justice requires he be permitted to amend the Complaint and
that each of the factors considered in the Court’s determination
of whether to grant leave to amend, weighs in favor of granting
Plaintiff’s motion. Id. For the foregoing reasons, this Court
agrees with Plaintiff, and the Motion to Amend the Complaint [ECF
No. 16] is GRANTED.
Under Rule 15, Plaintiff asserts that all three Foman factors
support granting leave to amend. First, Plaintiff contends that

the motion is not unduly delayed because it was filed within the
timeframe agreed to by the parties and adopted by the Court in its
scheduling order. ECF No. 17, at 3. Additionally, the Defendant
will not be prejudiced because the action is in the early stages
of discovery, and this gives Defendant time to address Plaintiff’s
newly raised count. Id. Second, Plaintiff suggests the motion is not filed in bad
faith as the case is in the early stages and the “proposed
amendment is fully supported by the procedural posture of this
civil action.” Id. Lastly, Plaintiff sets forth that the
amendment would not be futile because the allegations previously
pled in the Complaint are sufficient to state a viable claim under

the WVWPCA. Id. at 3-4. Defendant did not file a motion opposing
Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend.
Here, the Court finds that the Foman factors support granting
Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. First, although
Plaintiff’s additional claim would raise a new legal theory for
Defendant to address, the claim relies on the same facts previously
set forth in the Complaint. Johnson, 785 F.2d at 510.
Additionally, the Motion was filed within the timeframe set forth
by the Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF No. 13] and was filed early
enough to allow Defendant ample time to engage in any necessary
additional discovery. Therefore, any prejudicial effect would be
minimal.

Next, the Court finds no basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s
motion was filed in bad faith. Plaintiff did not delay in seeking
the amendment, and the record does not support finding Plaintiff
filed the subject motion to secure an “ulterior tactical
advantage.” GSS Props., 119 F.R.D. at 381. Lastly, the
allegations in the Complaint would suffice to defeat a motion to
dismiss on the additional claim under the WVWPCA. Therefore, the
proposed amendment is not clearly insufficient, frivolous, or
futile on its face. Johnson, 785 F.2d at 510.
Accordingly, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend the Complaint would not unduly prejudice Defendant, the
motion is not made in bad faith, and is not clearly futile.

Therefore, Plaintiff satisfies Rule 15(a)(2), and the Motion to
Amend is GRANTED.
V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court gives leave to amend
the Complaint and Plaintiff James B. Earp’s Motion to Amend
Complaint [ECF No. 16], is hereby GRANTED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to FILE SEPARATELY
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, attached as ECF No. 16-1.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record.
DATED: April 7, 2026

Tom 8 Kl
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA