SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Stewart

Filing 21

Order re: 20 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by SE Property Holdings, LLC. Responses due by 4/28/2014. If no objection is filed by that time, it is ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 20 ) be granted without further action by the Court, and Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint (Doc. 20-1) attached to the motion as its operative complaint in this action by 4/30/2014. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 4/18/2014. copies to parties. (sdb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. STEWART, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00609-KD-C ORDER This action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 20). “[P]ursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(2)[,]” Plaintiff “requests leave to amend its pleadings to new [sic] claims against Defendant David A. Stewart” and to add and assert claims against other parties. (Id. at 1). The motion was filed April 11, 2014, and is timely under the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 15 at 1, ¶ 4). As the Defendant filed his Answer on January 7, 2014, the time for Plaintiff to amend its Complaint once as a matter of course has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Once the time period for amending a pleading as of right has expired, Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides amendment “only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court. Rule 15(a), however, limits the court's discretion by mandating that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” See Halliburton & Assoc. v. Henderson, Few & Co., 774 F.2d 441 (11th Cir. 1985). There must be a substantial reason to deny a motion to amend. Id. Substantial reasons justifying a denial include “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, ... undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). Laurie v. Ala. Court of Criminal Appeals, 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Upon consideration, the Court finds that, unless an opposing party can articulate a “substantial reason” otherwise, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 20) is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that any objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 20) shall be filed on or before Monday, April 28, 2014. If no such objection is filed by that time, it is ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 20) is GRANTED without further action by the Court, and Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint (Doc. 20-1) attached to the motion as its operative complaint in this action on or before Wednesday, April 30, 2014. Responsive pleadings to the amended complaint shall be filed within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of April 2014. /s/ Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?