Cacho v. Sunbility LLC et al
Filing
37
ORDER granting #32 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying as moot #17 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file his proposed Amended Complaint on or before May 23, 2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd on 5/19/2023. (AS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JOSHUA CACHO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:23-cv-14-WWB-EJK
SUNBILITY LLC and DANIELLE
STALLINGS,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint (the “Motion”), filed April 21, 2023. (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff has attached the
proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 32-1.) Defendants filed a response in opposition
on May 4, 2023. (Doc. 34.) Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to amend a pleading
prior to trial should be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
After a responsive pleading has been filed, a party may amend its pleading only by
leave of court or written consent of the adverse party. Id. “The court should freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Id. While the granting of leave to amend
is not automatic, “unless there is a substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the
discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial.” Thomas v. Town
of Davie, 847 F.2d 771, 773 (11th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A district court [however,] may deny a motion to amend on ‘numerous
grounds, such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of the
amendment.’” Kendall v. Thaxton Road LLC, 443 F. App’x 388, 393 (11th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished) (quoting Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of the Div. of Univs. of the Fla. Dep’t of
Educ., 342 F.3d 1281, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003)). “However, leave to amend should only
be denied on the ground of futility when the proposed amendment is clearly
insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Taylor v. Fla. State Fair Auth., 875 F. Supp. 812,
815 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (finding that denial on the basis of futility is improper where
determination of a complex factual inquiry is required); see also Westchester Surplus Lines
Ins. Co. v. ATA Fishville FL, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-297-FtM-38NPM, 2020 WL336246, at
*1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2020) (finding arguments opposing amendment were better
suited for dispositive motions to permit both sides to fully develop and respond to
arguments).
Defendants argue that the Motion should be denied as Plaintiff’s amendment
would be futile. (See Doc. 34.) Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to release
defendants that should not be a party to this case and more clearly “state which
defendants are being accused of which Counts.” (See Doc. 32.)
The Motion was timely filed in advance of the June 30, 2023, deadline to amend
pleadings. (Doc. 35.) Moreover, the case is still in its infancy, and the Court is not
persuaded that amendment at this early stage would cause undue delay or prejudice to
-2-
Defendants. Plaintiff’s amendment will allow for a more streamlined and concise
complaint, and is therefore not futile.
Upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint (Doc. 32) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file his
proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 32-1) on or before May 23, 2023. Additionally,
Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 19, 2023.
-3-
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?