ORDER denying as moot 5 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; granting 14 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Having reviewed the motion, the¶

Grodman v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, No. 5:23-cv-00210 (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 20 · 2024-01-17 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:23-cv-00210-H

Document 20

Filed 01/17/24

Page 1 of 2

PageID 286

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERI{ DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SCHYLER GRODMAN,
Plaintiff,

No. 5:23-CV-2I0-H

V

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER,
Defendant

ORDER
Before the Court is the plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

(Dkt. No l4), the defendant's response (Dkt. No. 16), and the plaintiffs reply (Dkt. No. 19).
The plaintiffseeks leave to amend his complaint in the following ways: (1) removing his
claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Texas Commission on Human
Rights Act (TCHRA); (2) adding a "Procedural Due Process claim against Texas Tech" and
an additional claim against a novel defendant under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983; and (3) modiffing
and clariffing the plaintiffs claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Dkt. Nos. 14 at 1.
Because the parties agree as to the claim removals and because of the strong policy favoring
leave to amend once as to the claim additions, the Court grants the motion. Further,
because the claims that Texas Tech sought to have dismissed pursuant to sovereign

immunity have been removed, seeDkt. No. 5, the Court further denies Texas Tech's Partial

Motion to Dismiss as moot.
The parties have agreed to remove the plaintiffs ADA and TCHRA claims. Dkt.

No. 14 at l-2. And while the parties have not agreed to the addition of the new claims,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l5(a)(2) states that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to

Case 5:23-cv-00210-H

Document 20

Filed 01/17/24

Page 2 of 2

PageID 287

amendl when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(aX2). "Rule 15(a) requires a trial
court to grant leave to amend freely, and the language of this rule evinces a bias in favor of

ganting leave to amend." Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. NCAA,751 F.3d 368, 378 (Sth Cir. 2014)
(quoting Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F .3d987 ,994 (sth Cir. 2005). Having
reviewed the motion, the response, the reply, and the applicable law, the Court grants the

motion (Dkt. No. 14) as to each set of amendments. The Clerk of Court is directed to file
the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 14-1) as a separate docket entry.
So ordered on January

l+ ,2024.
JAMES

LEY
TES DISTRICT JUDGE

2