Earp v. Federal Express Corporation

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].
Case 1:25-cv-00052-TSK Document 36 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.
Case 1:25-cv-00052-TSK Document 36 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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
Case 1:25-cv-00052-TSK Document 36 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
“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
Case 1:25-cv-00052-TSK Document 36 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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
Case 1:25-cv-00052-TSK Document 36 Filed 04/07/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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.
Case 1:25-cv-00052-TSK Document 36 Filed 04/07/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
It is so ORDERED.
The 	Clerk 	is 	directed 	to 	transmit 	copies 	of 	this 	Order 	to
counsel of record.
DATED: April 7, 2026
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:25-cv-00052-TSK Document 36 Filed 04/07/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>