Selectica, Inc. v. Novatus, Inc.
Filing
21
ORDER denying without prejudice 18 Motion to file supplemental counterclaim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 4/8/2014. (Smith, Thomas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
SELECTICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:13-cv-1708-Orl-36TBS
NOVATUS, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Counterclaim. (Doc. 18). Defendant alleges that “[i]n February, 2014, several months
after Novatus filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, one of Selectia’s representatives
made false and derogatory statements to one of Novatus’s prospective customers.
These statements defamed Novatus and implied that this lawsuit may render Novatus
unable to service the prospective customer.” (Doc. 18 ¶ 4). Plaintiff argues, inter alia,
that Defendant’s request is “procedurally deficient” because it “does not identify the
proposed causes of action” and “does not contain sufficient additional information about
the proposed counterclaim to determine the basis of the claim.” (Doc. 19 at 1-2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend a pleading with the
opposing party’s written consent or leave of court, if such a request is made more than 21
days after service. Subsection (d) provides that “[o]n motion and reasonable notice, the
court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any
transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading . . .” FED.
R. CIV. P. 15(d). The Eleventh Circuit has held that a motion for leave to amend filed
pursuant to Rule 15 “should either set forth the substance of the proposed amendment or
attach a copy of the proposed amendment.” Rance v. Winn, 287 F. App’x 840, 841 (11th
Cir. 2008) (citing Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999)); see Farrell v.
G.M.A.C., No. 2:07-cv-817-FtM-34DNF, 2008 WL 1766909, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 2008).
The Court is unable to “assess the viability of the proposed amendment” in this
case because Defendant has failed to attach a copy of the proposed amendment or
establish – with some degree of specificity – the substance of the proposed amendment.
See Sure Fill & Seal, Inc. v. GFF, Inc., No. 8:08-cv-00882-T-17-TGW, 2009 WL 1751726,
at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 17, 2009). Upon due consideration, Defendant’s motion (Doc. 18)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 8, 2014.
Copies furnished to Counsel of Record
-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?