Ghani v. ARS Pharmaceuticals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JUSTIN GHANI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARS PHARMACEUTICALS,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-2282-JAR-JBW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt.
59). Plaintiff requests leave to file his proposed Third Amended Complaint to refine and clarify
his existing claims by asserting two claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—for
sex discrimination based on gender stereotypes and sex discrimination based on disparate
treatment—and dropping his claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Plaintiff previously
filed five motions to amend his complaint while proceeding pro se. This sixth motion was filed
after counsel entered an appearance for Plaintiff. Defendant vehemently objects to the motion,
arguing the Court denied Plaintiff’s prior motion to amend as untimely, Plaintiff fails to show good
cause for his present motion, and allowing Plaintiff to amend again will prejudice it. For the
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff filed his original complaint on May 23, 2025. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
(Dkt. 7) on July 25, 2025, which identified several pleading deficiencies. In response, Plaintiff
filed a motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. 10) on August 7, 2025. After Defendant did not file a
response, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion by text order on August 22, 2025 (Dkt. 12).
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 62 Filed 05/19/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Defendant filed another motion to dismiss (Dkt. 15) on August 29, 2025. Plaintiff filed his second
motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. 17) on September 9, 2025.
At the September 29, 2025 scheduling conference, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second
motion to amend his complaint, finding the proposed amendment would be futile (Dkt. 24). The
Court entered a Scheduling Order (Dkt. 25) that set a November 21, 2025 deadline for the filing
of any motion to amend the pleadings.
Immediately after the September 29 scheduling conference, Plaintiff filed his third motion
to amend pleadings (Dkt. 22). The Court noted this motion appeared identical to Plaintiff's earlier-
filed motion the Court denied as futile at the scheduling conference. The Court denied Plaintiff’s
third motion based on the same futility grounds it denied his earlier motion.
On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt.
27). Defendant did not file any opposition to the motion. On October 28, 2025, the Court granted
Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint a second time and directed the Clerk to file his proposed
Second Amended Complaint, which was filed the same day (Dkt. 32).
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 35) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on
November 11, 2025. In response, Plaintiff filed another motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. 40)
on December 1, 2025.
On January 30, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s fifth motion to amend his complaint as
untimely, finding Plaintiff had not shown good cause as required by Rule 16(b)(4) for his motion
filed after the scheduling order deadline. Specifically, the Court found “Plaintiff did not provide
an adequate reason for his delay for his latest amendment after being granted two prior
amendments of his complaint. Plaintiff knew or should have known the facts he alleges in his
proposed amendment but failed to timely include them.”
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 62 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 5

3
On March 20, 2026, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff (Dk. 53). The
Court held a status conference on April 14, 2026 and entered an Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt.
57) that extended some of the scheduling order deadlines, including the expired discovery
deadline. The Court also specifically set an April 24, 2026 deadline for Plaintiff to file any motion
for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff filed his motion on April 24, 2026.
II. 	Legal Standards for Amendment of Pleadings
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings before trial. It
provides that a party may amend a pleading “once as a matter of course” before trial if it does so
within certain deadlines.1 Other amendments are allowed “only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave.”2 Rule 15(a)(2) also instructs that the court “should freely give leave
when justice so requires.”3 The court’s decision to grant leave to amend a complaint, after the
permissive period, is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse
of that discretion.4 The court may deny leave to amend upon a showing of “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 allowance of the
amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”5
1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later
than: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or
(f), whichever is earlier.”).
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
3 Id.; accord Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
4 Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006).
5 Id. (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 62 Filed 05/19/26 Page 3 of 5

4
III. 	Whether Plaintiff Should Be Granted Leave to Amend His Complaint
Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, arguing that allowing the
amendment will prejudice Defendant by wasting time and expense to defend against meritless
claims. It points out the Court has already denied Plaintiff’s previous motions to amend his
complaint and, even now being represented by counsel, Plaintiff still has not shown any cause, let
alone good cause, why the proposed amendments could not have been included in any of his prior
amended complaints. Defendant argues that Plaintiff should not be permitted another opportunity
to amend his complaint without any explanation as to why he is entitled to such luxury.
Plaintiff asserts that he has shown good cause to amend his complaint by his recent
retention of counsel and his proposed amendment—which narrows, clarifies and refines his
existing Title VII claim and drops the Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim. He argues Rule 15(a)
requires the Court to “free give leave when justice so requires,” and he should be permitted to
amend his complaint notwithstanding the Court’s denial of his previous motions filed while
proceeding pro se. He also argues that allowing his proposed amendment will focus and streamline
his claims, make motion practice clearer, and potentially shorten this litigation. He also points out
this case has not progressed quickly as one might expect and no depositions have been taken.
The Court finds, under the circumstances here and the liberal policy favoring amendment
when “justice so requires,” Plaintiff should be granted another opportunity to amend his complaint.
Plaintiff’s retention of counsel in the case and the nature of the proposed amendment, which refines
and clarifies the existing Title VII claim and drops the Pregnancy Discrimination claim, are both
good cause for allowing amendment. Here, justice is served by allowing Plaintiff’s proposed Third
Amended Complaint, which was drafted with the assistance of counsel. The Court’s prior denial
of Plaintiff’s motions to amend while he was proceeding pro se should not foreclose the current
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 62 Filed 05/19/26 Page 4 of 5

5
requested amendment. Defendant has not argued that the present amendment would be futile.
Although the case is now nearly a year old, little discovery has occurred to date and no depositions
have been taken. The proposed amendment does not add claims, and actually drops one claim, so
allowing it should not require significant additional discovery and should streamline further
motion practice. Defendant has not shown that it would be unduly prejudiced by allowing the
amendment even though it will require the filing of an answer or another motion to dismiss to the
Third Amended Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and File
Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 59) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his proposed Third
Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit 1 (Dkt. 59-1) to his motion, by May 26, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 19, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
Jennifer B. Wieland
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 62 Filed 05/19/26 Page 5 of 5