Truong v. Collins Aerospace System

Background

Lisa Truong, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Collins Aerospace System, Rosemount Aerospace Inc., and Seyfarth & Shaw LLP. She alleged discrimination and retaliation based on the defendants’ failure to promote her. The opinion states that the alleged retaliation related to an action she filed against Collins in 2018.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Truong’s original complaint without prejudice for insufficient service of process and denied her motion for default judgment. Truong appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On the same day, she filed an amended complaint asserting claims against Collins alone.

Motion to Amend

Truong filed the amended complaint more than seven months after service of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, she therefore needed Collins’s written consent or the court’s permission before amending. She had neither. Because Truong was representing herself, the court liberally treated the amended complaint as a motion for permission to amend.

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider that motion while Truong’s appeal was pending. A notice of appeal generally removes the district court’s authority over matters involved in the appeal. The court explained that if the Eighth Circuit reversed the earlier order, Truong’s original complaint could return into effect. The court therefore denied the motion to amend for lack of jurisdiction.

The court also ruled that it would deny the motion even if it had jurisdiction. Although the amended complaint included more detailed allegations concerning discrimination and retaliation, it did not explain how the proposed changes would cure the original complaint’s insufficient service of process. The court specifically noted that the amended complaint did not explain whether Truong had properly served Collins.

Motion to Strike

Collins moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike the amended complaint, arguing that it was filed after judgment and dismissal and did not comply with the federal or local amendment rules. Because the court treated the amended complaint as a motion to amend and denied that motion, it denied Collins’s motion to strike as moot.

Disposition and Classification

The court ordered that Truong’s amended complaint, treated as a motion to amend, was DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. It separately ordered that Collins’s motion to strike was DENIED as moot. The court did not reach the merits of Truong’s Title VII allegations. This is a procedural order because the ruling rested on the court’s lack of jurisdiction during the pending appeal and on the proposed amendment’s failure to cure the service defect.