Reed V Ascension Health
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSHUA REED and ANTHONY ACUNA, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 24-cv-00419-SH
)
ASCENSION HEALTH, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ opposed motion for leave to file an amended
complaint.1 For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion and
denies, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the original pleadings.
Background
Plaintiffs Joshua Reed and Anthony Acuna filed this action in Tulsa County District
Court on July 1, 2024, asserting claims against Ascension Health for slander and libel;
false light invasion of privacy; negligence and gross negligence; and intentional interfer-
ence with business relations.2 (ECF No. 2-1.) Plaintiffs allege they were traveling nurses
employed by Ascension Connect, LLC. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 5.) Generally, Plaintiffs allege that
between June and July 2023, Shawnna Yost—an employee of Ascension Health—
wrongfully stated, or caused others to state, that Plaintiffs abandoned their final shift
working at Christi St. Joseph Hospital, which resulted in their termination, caused a loss
of bonus pay, and otherwise harmed their reputation and employability. (Id. ¶¶ 5–14.)
1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge for all purposes
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a). (ECF No. 35.)
2 The original petition also asserted claims against Shawnna Yost, who has since been
dismissed from the case. (ECF No. 39.)
Ascension Health removed the matter to this Court on September 9, 2024, and filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 20, 2025. (ECF Nos. 2, 45.) Per the
scheduling order, the parties had until July 31, 2025, to move to amend their pleadings.
(ECF No. 44.)
Plaintiffs now seek leave to file an amended complaint to add claims against
Ascension Connect for intentional interference with business relations, unpaid wages,
and breach of contract. (ECF No. 46 ¶ 5; ECF No. 46-1 ¶¶ 29–39.) Further, Plaintiffs’
proposed amended complaint updates certain allegations to differentiate between actions
of Ascension Health, Ascension Connect, and “Ascension” generally. (Compare, e.g., ECF
No. 2-1 ¶ 8 with ECF No. 46-1 ¶ 8 (clarifying “that Ascension Health saw [Plaintiffs’
alleged] shift abandonment as a voluntary resignation” (emphasis added)).) Plaintiffs
argue that leave to amend should be granted because discovery has not yet begun and
“Defendants will have ample opportunity to respond to the Amended Complaint without
any disadvantage or prejudice.” (ECF No. 46 ¶ 9.) Ascension Health opposes the motion
on the basis that amendment would be futile. (ECF No. 49 at 3–12.3)
Analysis
I. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Rule 15, a party may, as a matter of course, amend a pleading 21 days
after serving it or within 21 days of service of a responsive pleading or motion. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” which should be freely given “when justice
so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
3 References to page numbers refer to the ECF header.
Refusal of leave to amend in the current circumstances is “generally only justified
upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or
dilatory motive, . . . or futility of amendment.” Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993)). The
decision whether to grant leave is within the discretion of the trial court. See Minter v.
Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). When exercising this discretion,
the Court must be mindful that the “purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants the
maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on
procedural niceties.” Id. (citation modified). As such, a “general presumption exists in
favor of allowing a party to amend its pleadings . . . .” Trujillo v. Moore Bros., Inc., No.
1:23-CV-00802-RM-SBP, 2024 WL 365037, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 3, 2024), R&R accepted,
2024 WL 358128 (Jan. 31, 2024).
II. Leave to Amend
Ascension Health asserts a number of arguments as to why amendment of
Plaintiffs’ complaint would be futile. These include (1) that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over Ascension Connect4 (ECF No. 49 at 3–6); and (2) that the amended
complaint fails to state a claim against Ascension Connect (id. at 7–12). Generally, a
“proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, would be subject to
dismissal.” Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d
848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999). “The party opposing the proposed amendment bears the
4 Ascension Health does not explain its standing to assert personal jurisdiction arguments
on behalf of a non-party. See Baldwin v. Pelican Reef Mgmt., LLC, No. 18-CV-00586-
PAB-NYW, 2019 WL 5095715, at *2 (D. Colo. July 25, 2019) (“it is not clear that the
existing Defendants have standing to assert any personal jurisdiction . . . arguments on
behalf of individuals who are not parties in this action”), R&R accepted, 2019 WL
5095656 (Aug. 30, 2019). The Court need not address that issue at this time.
burden of establishing its futility.” Mackley v. TW Telecom Holdings, Inc., 296 F.R.D.
655, 661 (D. Kan. 2014).
An initial review of Ascension Health’s arguments does not persuade the Court that
the entirety of the proposed amendments are futile. Moreover, some of the amendments
offer clarity as to the particular entity that allegedly performed specific actions in the case
and could impact the viability of the claims against Ascension Health—something
Ascension Health fails to address.
This is exactly the type of situation where arguments against a proposed
amendment are better suited to a dispositive motion, allowing the Court and parties to
benefit from a full briefing schedule.5 “Rather than force a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a
Rule 15(a) opposition brief, the defendants may be better served by waiting to assert Rule
12 motions until the operative complaint is in place.” Gen. Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v.
Steelwise, LLC, No. 07-cv-01145-DME-KMT, 2008 WL 2520423, at *4 (D. Colo. June 20,
2008); see also Thompson v. McDonough, No. 23-cv-499-GKF-SH, slip. op. at 3–4 (N.D.
Okla. July 23, 2024). As Judge Gregory K. Frizzell noted in Thompson, this approach has
been applied a number of times by our sister courts. See, e.g., Trujillo, 2024 WL 365037,
at *6 (quoting Gen. Steel); Yousif v. Landers Mclarty Olathe KS, LLC, No. CIV.A. 12-
2788-CM, 2013 WL 2458485, at *1 (D. Kan. June 5, 2013) (where defendants oppose “the
proposed amendment solely on grounds of futility . . . the Court may properly exercise its
discretion to allow the amendment when the party opposing it will have an opportunity
to challenge the sufficiency of newly added claims through a motion to dismiss”); Peter D
5 As currently situated, Plaintiffs would have to respond to the multiple, potentially
dispositive issues raised in Ascension Health’s response using the shortened time, page,
and subject-matter limitations set out for a reply brief in the local rules. LCvR 7-1(f).
Holdings, LLC v. Wold Oil Propoerties, LLC, No. 17-CV-212-R, 2018 WL 10399010, at *4
(D. Wyo. Aug. 20, 2018) (the “arguments raised in opposition to the proposed
amendments would be more effectively raised in a separate dispositive motion rather than
indirectly under Rule 15(a)”). But see Hernandez v. Valley View Hosp. Ass’n, No. 10-CV-
00455-REB-MJW, 2010 WL 5157310, at *1 n.3 (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2010) (cautioning
against applying this line of reasoning “regardless of the circumstances,” because it
“delays the near-inevitable motion to dismiss and, concomitantly, creates potentially
unnecessary burdens on the litigants and the court”), affd on other grounds, 684 F.3d
950 (10th Cir. 2012). Allowing Plaintiffs to file the requested amended complaint will
promote the interests of justice and facilitate resolution of any properly pled claims on
the merits.
Ascension Health’s pending motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 45) is
directed at Plaintiffs’ original petition and will become moot upon the filing of the first
amended complaint. For this reason, the Court will deny Ascension Health’s motion
without prejudice to the reassertion of its arguments after the filing of the amended
complaint.
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Complaint
by July 30, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ascension Health’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 45) is DENIED Moor. <
ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2025. >A) le )
SUSAN E. AN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT