THE POST-CONFIRMATION COMMITTEE FOR SMALL LOANS INC v. MARTIN et al

Filing 112

ORDER granting 97 Motion to Amend/Correct.Ordered by U.S. District Judge W LOUIS SANDS on 11/6/14 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
POST-CONFIRMATION COMMITTEE
FOR SMALL LOANS, INC.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
W. DEREK MARTIN, as Executor
of the Estate of Vance R. Martin, et al.
Defendants.

CASE NO.: 1:13-CV-195 (WLS)

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Post-Confirmation Committee for Small Loans,
Inc.’s (“the Committee”) Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 97.) Therein, the Committee
states that it seeks to amend its complaint to remove certain Defendants (Doc. 97-2 at 1),
add James Patrick Johnston as a Defendant (Id.), clarify or add particularity to certain factual
allegations (Id. at 18 & 22), add claims for breach of trust, avoidance and recovery of
preferential transfers, and insider trading (Id. at 32-33, 44-45 & 59-60), and remove the claim
for attorney’s fees (Id. at 61). Defendants oppose amendment to the complaint because the
Committee should or could have discovered earlier the facts necessary to make the proposed
amendments, and such amendment will allegedly substantially increase expenditure of legal
fees to conduct additional discovery, significantly delay disposition of the lawsuit, and unduly
prejudice James Patrick Johnston. (See Docs. 100-102 & 105.)
Courts “should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motives on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should,
as the rules requires, be ‘freely given.’ ” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Like each

1

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15 “should be construed and administered to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The proposed amendments to the complaint remove defendants, clarify or amplify
certain factual allegations, and add one defendant whose wife was originally named in the
complaint. The amendments all arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as alleged in
the initial complaint. First, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds irrelevant
the Defendants’ contention that the Committee could have moved to amend its complaint
earlier. The Committee moved to amend its complaint by the deadline established by the
Court’s order granting a consent motion to extend scheduling deadlines.

Further, the

additional facts asserted in the amended complaint only clarify or amplify previous factual
allegations. The new allegations do not change the scope of this litigation to any degree.
Second, the Court affords little weight to the Defendants’ suggestion that the
amended complaint will substantially increase necessary legal expenses or time needed to
conduct additional discovery. As noted above, the proposed amendments do not add facts
outside the scope of the initial complaint. In nearly all respects, the amended complaint is
simply a more precise version of the initial complaint.
Lastly, the Court finds that James Patrick Johnston (“Johnston”) will not be
prejudiced by being added as a party to this suit. That Defendant will have fourteen days
after service of the amended complaint to respond, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3), and joinder is
permissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Adding Johnston as a Defendant to this suit will
conserve judicial resources that would be expended opening a new case and beginning
motions practice anew in a different judicial district. Whether the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Johnston is not for the Court to decide at this juncture.

2

For the reasons stated above, the Committee’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc.
97) is GRANTED. Also, the Court finds that the amended complaint properly relates back
to the date of the original pleading in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of November 2014.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3