Moseti v. Mary Kay

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PETER MOSETI, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-1313-K-BW
§
MARY KAY, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	made 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and 	a
recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. (Doc. 111.) Plaintiff Peter Moseti, proceeding
pro se, filed objections on August 29, 2026. 	(Doc. 112.) 	On September 16, 2026,
Moseti filed a “Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, To Modify the Scheduling
Order to the Extent Necessary, and To Resolve Leave Before the Final Judgment.”
(Doc. 115 (“Motion to Amend”).)
The District Judge has made a de novo review of those portions of the FCR to
which objections were made and has reviewed all other portions of the FCR for plain
error. 	The objections are overruled, and the court finds no plain error with respect to
the remainder of the FCR. 	The court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 	Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Defendant Mary Kay’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 	(Doc. 98.) 	The
Case 3:25-cv-01313-K-BW Document 119 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

-2-
Court will by separate judgment DISMISS Moseti’s claims with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a).
Next, addressing the Motion to Amend, Moseti moves for leave to amend under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), or alternatively, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b)(4). 	(Motion to Amend at ECF p. 1.) 	The motion fails under either
standard. 	Even if Moseti had demonstrated good cause to modify the scheduling
order—which he has not—the motion fails because Moseti’s proposed amendment is
futile. An amended complaint may be denied for futility when the plaintiff seeks to add
claims that are barred by res judicata because the amendment does not cure the
deficiency of the original complaint—failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. 	See Thomas v. Two Rivers Grocery & Mkt., 531 F. App’x 451 (5th Cir. 2013)
(holding that denial on grounds of futility was not an abuse of discretion when the
plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to cure the defects in the original complaint).
Moseti 	contends 	that 	he 	should 	be 	permitted 	to 	add 	a 	Title 	VII 	race
discrimination claim to his lawsuit because he recently received a Right to Sue letter
from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding the Charge
of Discrimination he filed against Mary Kay regarding his termination of employment.
(Motion 	to 	Amend 	at 	2.) 	Moseti 	admits, 	however, 	that 	his 	“Title 	VII 	race-
discrimination count aris[es] from the same January 2024 termination already pleaded,
discovered, and litigated” and “adds no defendant, new employment transition, new
adverse action, or unrelated factual episode.” 	(Motion to Amend at 3; Doc. 115-1 at
Case 3:25-cv-01313-K-BW Document 119 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

-3-
6, 14). 	That admission demonstrates the futility of his amendment. 	“The summary
judgment test for discrimination claims under § 1981 is the same as the test for
discrimination claims under Title VII.” 	Riley v. Sch. Bd. Union Par., 379 Fed. App’x
335, 339 (5th Cir. 2010); Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 316 (5th
Cir. 2004). 	Because the analysis is the same and the factual circumstances for the
“new” Title VII claim are the same, the Court’s dismissal of Moseti’s § 1981 claim on
summary judgment renders his Motion to Amend to add a Title VII claim futile. 	See
Whitt v. Stephens County, 529 F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s
denial of futile motion to amend complaint); Anderson v. Office Depot, Inc., No.
CIV.A.308CV288DPJJCS, 2009 WL 1116306, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 24, 2009), aff’d,
360 Fed. App’x 553 (5th Cir. 2010) (denying motion to amend to add § 1981 claim
based on same conduct alleged in Title VII race discrimination claim). 	Accordingly,
Moseti’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 115) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed October 13th , 2026.
___________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01313-K-BW Document 119 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>