A injured shopper can update her lawsuit to add more detail about a manager's role.
Kathryn S. Pierce v. Rooms to Go Louisiana Corp., Jody Catalano, and ABC Insurance Company
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A injured shopper can update her lawsuit to add more detail about a manager's role.
Why it matters
In Pierce v. Rooms to Go Louisiana Corp., a federal district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana granted plaintiff Kathryn Pierce's motion to file an amended complaint. Pierce sought to add more specific allegations against a nondiverse defendant, store manager Jody Catalano, after she sued over injuries from a fall at a Rooms to Go store. The court found that all relevant factors favored allowing the amendment, and that the defendants' only objection, a claim that the amendment was futile, was better suited for a later motion to dismiss rather than a decision at this early stage.
Who it affects
- Including the plaintiff
- The named defendants. More broadly
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Oct 5, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Oct 5, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Oct 5, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
The central question was whether Pierce should be allowed to amend her complaint to clarify and strengthen her allegations against Jody Catalano, the on-duty store manager at the time of her alleged fall at a Rooms to Go location in Louisiana. Catalano is a Louisiana citizen, as is Pierce, which matters because the defendants argued Catalano was improperly added to the lawsuit just to prevent the case from being heard in federal court. After Rooms to Go removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, Pierce both moved to remand and sought to amend her complaint. The court granted the motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which calls for courts to freely give leave to amend when justice requires. Courts applying this rule consider factors such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failures to fix problems in prior amendments, undue prejudice to the other side, and whether the amendment would be futile. The defendants argued only that the amendment was futile because it contained only conclusory allegations against Catalano that would not support a personal liability claim. The court rejected that argument at this stage, explaining that questions of futility are better resolved through a formal motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), not at the amendment stage. The court reasoned that granting leave allows the plaintiff to put forward her best case before it is tested under that stricter standard. The court also noted that the case is in its early stages, no trial date has been set, no new parties are being added, and there is no indication of undue prejudice to the defendants. The court ordered Pierce's proposed amended complaint to be filed in the record. The underlying questions about whether Catalano was properly joined and whether the case belongs in federal or state court were not resolved by this ruling and remain open for future proceedings.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KATHRYN S. PIERCE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 26-1846 ROOMS TO GO LOUISIANA CORP., SECTION "T" (3) JODY CATALANO, AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY ORDER AND REASONS Plaintiff, Kathryn S. Pierce (“Pierce”), filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 4). Defendants Jody Catalano (“Catalano”) and Rooms to Go Louisiana Corp. (“RTG”) oppose (R. Doc. 6). Having considered the submissions of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the motion. On December 30, 2025, Pierce filed a lawsuit against Defendants in the 24th Judicial District in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, alleging she suffered injuries from a fall at RTG’s storehouse.1 RTG filed a notice of removal on August 21, 2026, based on diversity jurisdiction and what it alleges is the improper joinder of nondiverse defendant, Catalano, “solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction.”2 Pierce moved to remand3 and filed the instant motion to amend, seeking to “clarify and specify the allegations against non-diverse Defendant, Jody Catalano,” the on-duty manager the day of Plaintiff’s alleged fall.4 1 R. Doc. 4-1 at 1. 2 R. Doc. 6 at 2. 3 R. Doc. 3. 4 R. Doc. 4 at 2. 1 Under Rule 15(a)(2), if more than 21 days after service of a responsive pleading have passed, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”5 Rule 15(a)(2) “evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.” Chitimacha Tribe of La. v. Harry L.L. Co., 690 F.2d 1157, 1163 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Mayeaux v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 425 (5th Cir. 2004). Indeed, the “district court must possess a ‘substantial reason’ to deny a request for leave to amend.” Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004). “That generous standard is tempered by the necessary power of a district court to manage a case.” Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie, 819 F.3d 170, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). Relevant factors to consider include “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment.” Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir. 2003). Defendants’ sole argument against amendment is that the proposed amendment is futile—specifically, that it offers only conclusory allegations against Catalano, which in turn necessitates a finding that the proposed amendment “fails to state a viable claim of personal liability against [Catalano].”6 Futility is an issue 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 6 R. Doc. 6 at 1. 2 “better addressed in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion rather than a Rule 15(a) motion for leave to amend.” Manship v. Throne, 2025 WL 1591444, at *2 (E.D. La. June 4, 2025) (citing Tesla, Inc. v. La. Auto. Dealers Ass’n, 2023 WL 9059650, at *7 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2023)). Granting leave to amend is “the best exercise of discretion” as it provides the opportunity for “plaintiff's best case” to be tested under the Rule 12(b)(6) framework. Tesla, Inc., 2023 WL 9059650, at *7 (“[I]t is not appropriate for this Court to address that pending [Rule 12(b)(6)] matter in ruling on the proposed amended complaint’). Each of the relevant factors weighs in favor of amendment. The parties are in the early stages of litigation, no trial date has been set, and the proposed pleading does not add any new parties. Further, there is no indication that amendment would be unduly prejudicial. For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (R. Doc. 4) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs proposed Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 4-3) shall be filed in the record. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of October, 2026. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.