Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Baker et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 18 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 11/18/13. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
AS RECEIVER OF FIRST
SECURITY NATIONAL BANK,
Plaintiff,

v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:12-CV-4173-RWS

DAN R. BAKER, RALPH N.
BARBER, JR., RALPH N.
BARBER, SR., JOHN A.
CONWAY, JERRY G.
GARDNER, CARL
HOWINGTON, AND JOHN R.
SMITH,
Defendants.

ORDER
This action comes before the Court for resolution of Plaintiff s Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint [18].
Plaintiff initiates this action against seven former officers and/or
directors (the "Defendants") of the First Security National Bank alleging

damages due to Defendants' mismanagement of the bank policies and
underwriting. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) asserts claims
against Defendants for negligence and gross negligence. Now, Plaintiff seeks
leave to amend its Original Complaint to add a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty and additional information in support of its claims for negligence and
gross negligence.
As it relates to the Motion to Amend Complaint [18], Rule 15(a)
provides that where, as here, a responsive pleading has been filed, a litigant
must seek leave to amend before filing an amended pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a). "[L]eave," however, }shall be freely given when justice so requires."
Id. Indeed, a district court should ordinarily deny leave to amend only where
the amendment is requested "(1) after undue delay, in bad faith, or with a
dilatory motive, (2) when the amendment would be futile, or (3) when the
amendment would cause undue delay or prejudice." Worsham v. Provident
Cos., 249 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1334 (N.D.Ga. 2002).
Defendants oppose Plaintiff s request to amend on the basis that the
request is due to undue delay and would result in undue prejudice to
Defendants. (Dkt. No. [21] at 4-8.) Specifically, Defendants argue that FDIC's
2

breach of fiduciary duty claims is based on information that Plaintiff long
possessed. Id. at 5. Defendants contend that Plaintiff s proposed amended
complaint does not assert any new facts or information. Id. at 6. Defendants
also assert that they are "severely prejudiced" by the proposed amendment. Id.
at 8.
In the present action, the Court finds no persuasive justification for
denying Plaintiff leave to amend the pleading. This Court has extended the
discovery period until and including February 6,2014, which provides ample
time for the parties to seek information pertaining to the additional claim'. (Dkt.
No. [28].) The Court does not find any bad faith, undue delay or prejudice that
would bar leave to amend. Consequently, Plaintiffs Motion to Amend
Complaint [18] is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this

1d'J*;::(lay of November, 2013.

RIC
W. STORY
UNITED STATES DI TRICT JUDGE

3