Cole et al v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company et al
ORDER granting 62 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; denying as moot 42 and 44 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge G. Thomas Eisele on 9/22/2008. (thd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JEFF COLE and KAYLA COLE, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated in the State of Arkansas V. NO. 4:08-CV-00217 GTE PLAINTIFFS
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
ORDE R Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The motion is opposed by the LandAmerica Defendants (LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.; Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company; Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company of New Jersey; Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation; and Transnation Title Insurance Company). All other Defendants have consented to the requested amendment. Federal rules of civil procedure require that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Permission to amend may be withheld if the plaintiff does not have at least colorable grounds for relief, or if he is guilty of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or if permission to amend would unduly prejudice the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). The Court concludes that the LandAmerica Defendants have failed to prove any of the recognized grounds for denying leave to amend a complaint. For good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 62) be, and it is hereby, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the two pending Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 42 and 44), both of which relate to the First Amended Complaint, be, and they are hereby, DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2008. _/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?