Vasquez v. Wang
ORDER granting 28 Motion to Amend Answer. Amended answer due 4/13/12. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 4/6/2012. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
PORFIRIO PERALTA VASQUEZ,
YEN FEI WANG, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0382-KD-C
The action is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to amend answers (doc. 28).
Defendants seek to amend their answers to clarify the time period during which Porfirio Vasquez
was employed by each of the defendants. Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth
herein, the motion is GRANTED and defendants shall file their amended answer on or before
April 13, 2012.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings and
sets forth in relevant part as follows:
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, 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
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The opposing party, Vasquez, did not give written consent nor respond to this Court’s
order requiring a response to defendants’ motion on or before April 3, 2012. Therefore, the
Court must determine whether justice requires that leave to amend should be given.
Generally, in the absence of any reason to deny the motion, such as undue prejudice to
the non-movant, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure
deficiencies on the part of the movant, or futility, leave to amend should be freely given when
justice so requires. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962). Therefore,
“there must be a substantial reason to deny a motion to amend.” Laurie v. Ala. Ct. of Crim.App.,
256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir.2001). Also, the federal rules favor allowing amendments.
Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Investment Co., 660 F.2d 594, 597 (5th Cir. 1981) (AThe policy of the
federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits
and to prevent litigation from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading.@).
In the motion, defendants state that language-based miscommunication caused counsel to
misstate when plaintiff was employed by each defendant but the amended answer correctly states
the time periods at issue. The motion was timely filed on March 20, 2012, in that the scheduling
order was amended to allow motions for leave to amend pleadings by March 22, 2012 (doc. 27).
Discovery concludes June 1, 2012. Therefore, the parties have sufficient time for discovery as to
defendants’ answer. In that regard, discovery may Adisclose more precisely the basis of both
claim and defense@ and Adefine more narrowly the disputed facts and issues.@ Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957).
Additionally, plaintiff did not advise the Court as to any prejudice which may result
should the Court allow the amendment and did not provide any evidence that defendants acted in
bad faith or with a dilatory motive, or that amending the answer would be futile. The docket
does not indicate that defendants engaged in undue delay or repeatedly failed to cure
deficiencies. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend the answer is due to be granted.
DONE and ORDERED this the 6th day of April, 2012.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?