Jones et al v. Bank of America Corporation

Filing 46

ORDER granting 45 Motion to Amend/Correct. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 5/30/13 (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JEFFERY JAY JONES and SANDRA
D. JONES, individually
and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

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

4:08-cv-152 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Jeffery Jay Jones and Sandra D. Jones’ Motion for
Leave to File Amended Complaint. (Doc. 45.) Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint
to change the proposed definition of the class of people affected by the issues in their
putative class action. Defendant Bank of America Corporation has not filed a response.
(See Docket.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) permits a party to amend its pleading
with the court’s leave “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. “[U]nless there is a
substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not
broad enough to permit denial.” Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1319 (11th
Cir. 1999) (quoting Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir.
1981)). In other words, the Court must identify a substantial reason to justify denying
the motion. Moore v. Baker, 989 F.2d 1129, 1131 (11th Cir. 1993). Substantial reasons

1

include undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, among others. Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
After reviewing the record, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs should be permitted
to amend their complaint under Rule 15. Plaintiffs’ motion is timely under the Court’s
scheduling and discovery order, which set the deadline to file all motions to amend for
June 1, 2013. Nothing in the record indicates that the amendment is offered in bad faith,
with dilatory motive, or would cause undue delay. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit has
indicated that the ability to modify the scope of the putative class while discovery is
ongoing is not only an important part of the Court’s case management duties but also an
essential part of the Court’s ultimate duty to make a proper Rule 23(c)(1) class
certification determination. Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1273
(11th Cir. 2000).
For those reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 45) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of May 2013.

/s/ W. Louis Sands_____
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2