Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance Company et al

Filing 238

OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff Gregory Wiedeman's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 227 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/3/17. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
GREGORY WIEDEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:15-cv-4182-WSD

CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
H&F TRANSFER, INC., AUTOOWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, and WALTER
PATRICK DORN, IV,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gregory Wiedeman’s Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [227] (“Motion to Amend”).
I.

BACKGROUND
This action arises from an August 8, 2014, collision (the “Collision”)

between Plaintiff and Defendant Walter Patrick Dorn, IV, an employee of
Defendant H&F Transfer, Inc. (“H&F”). The truck Dorn was driving was leased
by H&F from Salem Leasing Corporation (“Salem”). On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff
filed his Renewed Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants H&F Transfer, Inc.
(“H&F”) and Salem Leasing Corporation (“Salem”) [221] (“Renewed Sanctions

Motion”), claiming that H&F and Salem conspired to destroy, conceal, and falsify
data from the electronic control module (“ECM”) of the truck involved in the
Collision.
On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend, seeking to amend his
Complaint to add a claim for attorneys’ fees under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 against
H&F and Salem for their alleged bad-faith spoliation that was the subject of
Plaintiff’s Renewed Sanctions Motion.
On June 9, 2017, the Court issued an order [229] (“June 9th Order”) denying
Plaintiff’s Renewed Sanctions Motion. The Court found that H&F cannot be held
liable for any alleged spoliation of evidence because the undisputed facts show that
the truck and the ECM data at issue were not in its possession, custody, or control
on the date when the alleged spoliation occurred. (June 9th Order at 6). The Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Salem, finding that Plaintiff failed to
present any evidence to show that Salem was on notice that it was reasonably
foreseeable that Plaintiff was anticipating litigation against Salem on the date when
the alleged spoliation occurred. (Id. at 8-9). The Court concluded that, “[i]n the
absence of evidence of bad faith, the Court declines to award sanctions for
spoliation.” (Id. at 9).

2

Salem and H&F oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, arguing that the
amendment is moot in light of the Court’s June 9th Order, and that, even if it is not
moot, amendment would be futile in light of the June 9th Order.
II.

DISCUSSION
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to file

one amended complaint as a matter of course, if the amended complaint is filed
either within twenty-one (21) days of service of the original complaint or within
twenty-one (21) days of the defendant’s filing of a responsive pleading or Rule 12
motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Amended complaints outside of these
time limits may be filed only “with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
“The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole
discretion of the district court.” Laurie v. Ala Ct. of Criminal Appeals, 256 F.3d
1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “There must be a substantial reason to deny a
motion to amend.” Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274. “Substantial reasons justifying a
denial include ‘undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the

3

amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Id. (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962)).
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add a claim for attorneys’ fees
under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, based on Salem and H&F’s alleged bad faith spoliation
of evidence. Under Section 13-6-11, attorneys’ fees may be awarded “where the
defendant has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused the
plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense[.]” O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. In its June 6th
Order, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to show that Salem or H&F acted in bad
faith, and otherwise found that spoliation sanctions are not warranted against
Salem and H&F. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Salem and H&F’s alleged
spoliation shows they “have been stubbornly litigious, and/or have caused Plaintiff
unnecessary trouble and expense,” ([227.8] ¶ 109), is unsubstantiated, and relies on
the same allegations the Court rejected in its June 6th Order. Because Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend is based on the same arguments and evidence it raised in support
of its Renewed Spoliation Motion, which the Court denied, the Court finds
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is
denied.

4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Gregory Wiedeman’s Motion for

Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [227] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2017.

5