Naples 9, LLC v. Everbank et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying as moot 17 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ; granting 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Reply to Defendant's Response ; denying 26 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/8/2011. (LMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
NAPLES 9, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 2:11-cv-273-FtM-29SPC

EVERBANK,
Defendant.
________________________________________

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff‟s Motion to Amend Amended Complaint
(Doc. # 24) filed on May 27, 2011. Plaintiff moves for leave to file an amended complaint to include
amendments of Plaintiff‟s general allegations and causes of action in order to conform to newly
discovered information. As grounds, Plaintiff states the new information will “correctly allege the
facts and circumstances underlying Plaintiff‟s claims, so that the issues may be properly joined
before this Court.” Also, Plaintiff states “the facts at issue fundamentally affect those rights as to
which Plaintiff seeks a declaration.” Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff‟s Motion
to Amend Amended Complaint (Doc. # 25) on June 2, 2011. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Leave to File Reply to Defendant‟s Response (Doc. # 26) on June 3, 2011.
Under rule 15(a), a party may amend the party‟s pleading as a matter of course before being
served with a responsive pleading or up to twenty-one (21) days after serving the pleading if a
responsive pleading is not allowed and the action is not yet on the trial calendar. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1). Otherwise, the Party must seek leave of court or written consent of the adverse party in

order to amend the pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The decision whether to grant leave to amend
a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court.” Laurie v. Alabama Court of Criminal
Appeals, 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), timely
motions for leave to amend are held to a very liberal standard and leave to amend should be freely
given when justice so requires. Senger Brothers Nursery, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours &
Company, 184 F.R.D. 674, 678 (M.D. Fla 1999). Thus, Rule 15(a) limits the court‟s discretion by
requiring that leave to amend must be “freely given when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Nat‟l. Independent Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v.
Charter Financial Group, Inc., 747 F.2d 1396, 1404 (11th Cir. 1984). As a result, the Court must
provide substantial justification if the Court denies a timely filed motion for leave to amend. Laurie,
256 F.3d at 1274. “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 allowance of the amendment.‟” Id.
Plaintiff states that its motion is not motivated by bad faith or delay, but that the motion is
necessary because the facts at issue fundamentally affect those rights as to which Plaintiff seeks a
declaration. Thus, the proposed Second Amended Complaint will permit consideration of the cause
on its merits. Plaintiff also suggests that the identity of the named tenant in the lease agreements
described in the pleadings is erroneous. As it is within the discretion of this Court, good cause is
found to allow the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint as requested. Accordingly, the Court will allow
Plaintiff‟s requested leave to amend the Amended Complaint, and will direct the Clerk to docket the
attached proposed Second Amended Complaint.

-2-

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Reply to Defendant EverBank's Response (Doc. #
26) on June 3, 2011. Since the Court finds good cause to grant the Amended Complaint, the Motion
for Leave is now moot. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 17) on May 19, 2011, which is denied as moot, as a result of
Plaintiff‟s filing of its Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff‟s Motion to Amend Amended Complaint (Doc. # 24) is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff‟s Motion for Leave to file Reply to Defendant‟s Response (Doc. # 26) is

DENIED.
3.

Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum

of Law (Doc. # 17) is DENIED as Moot.
4.

The Clerk is directed to file the Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint attached as a

separate docket entry.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this

Copies: All Parties of Record

-3-

8th

day of June, 2011.