Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 62

Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by John Ward, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A - First Amended Complaint, # 2 Ex. A to Complaint, # 3 Ex. B to Complaint, # 4 Ex. C to Complaint)(Patton, Nicholas)

Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 62

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 62

Filed 05/11/09 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOHN WARD, JR. Plaintiff V. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Defendant. § § § § § § § § § §

No. 08-4022 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: COMES NOW, JOHN WARD, JR., Plaintiff, and for his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and Local Rule 5.5(e), respectfully shows as follows: 1. Plaintiff seeks leave from this Court to file his First Amended Complaint. A copy

of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as required by Local Rule 5.5(e). 2. Plaintiff seeks to amend his Original Complaint for the following reasons: (1) to

reflect the fact that Richard Frenkel has been dismissed without prejudice from the abovecaptioned lawsuit, (2) to provide additional factual information to Defendant regarding the scope of Plaintiff's cause of action for defamation, (3) to include new causes of action for the tort of outrage and invasion of privacy and (4) to clarify that Plaintiff is not seeking lost profit damages but is only seeking to recover general damages for harm to his reputation and for mental anguish.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 62

Filed 05/11/09 Page 2 of 3

3.

The Court has discretion whether to grant or deny leave to amend pleadings.

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, unless the purpose of an amended pleading is improper, the Supreme Court has instructed that leave to amend should be "freely given." Id. 4. The amendment will not prejudice Defendant. Plaintiff has previously provided

Defendant with a draft version of his Amended Complaint, including the newly added causes of action for the tort of outrage and invasion of privacy. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's motion so long as Defendant is provided an opportunity to file an Amended Answer. 5. Plaintiff's motion complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This motion

is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay or other dilatory motive but so that justice may be done. Plaintiff and his attorneys of record have read the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. To the best of Plaintiff's belief the claims set forth therein are well grounded in fact and are warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, the acts forming the basis of Plaintiff's claims are not privileged; and the claims asserted therein are not asserted for any improper purpose such as to suppress the right of free speech or right to petition government of a person or entity, to harass, or to cause unnecessary delay or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. 6. Plaintiff's motion conforms to this Court's Scheduling Order permitting the filing

of amended pleadings before July 17, 2009. Permitting amendment of Plaintiff' Complaint will not hinder Defendant's ability to take discovery concerning Plaintiff's causes of action. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant his leave to file his First Amended Complaint.

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 62

Filed 05/11/09 Page 3 of 3

Respectfully Submitted,

Nicholas H. Patton State Bar No. 63035 Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder, LLP 4605 Texas Boulevard Texarkana, Texas 75503 903.792.7080 / 903.792.8233 (Fax) Patricia L. Peden LAW OFFICE OF PATRICIA L. PEDEN 610 16th Street, Suite 400 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this 11th day of May, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served electronically upon: Richard E. Griffin Charles Babcock Crystal Parker JACKSON WALKER, LLP 1401 McKinney Suite 1900 Houston, Texas 77010 Attorney for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.

Nicholas H. Patton