Augusta National, Inc. v. Green Jacket Auctions, Inc.

Filing 84

ORDER granting 64 Motion to add Greg J. Waunford-Brown as a Party Defendant; granting 64 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint; denying 64 Motion to Dismiss King Green Jacket. Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint within seven days of the date of this Order, and the Clerk shall add Greg J. Waunford-Brown as a Defendant to this action. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/16/2018. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

*

AUGUSTA NATIONAL, INC.,

•k
k

Plaintiff,

k

*

V.

CV 117-096

*

5

GREEN JACKET AUCTIONS, INC.,

*

Defendant.

*
k

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff's

''Motion

to

Amend

the

Complaint to Add Greg J. Waunford-Brown as a Party-Defendant and
Dismiss Claims to the King Green Jacket."

(Doc. 64.)

As the

title suggests. Plaintiff requests the Court (1) add Greg J.
Waunford-Brown as a party-defendant and (2) dismiss all claims

related to the King Green Jacket (the "King Jacket").

Plaintiff

wants to add Mr. Waunford-Brown because Mr. Waunford-Brown is

the consignor of the Nelson Green Jacket (the "Nelson Jacket").
Plaintiff wants to dismiss all claims related to the King Jacket

because

the

consignor

of the

King

Jacket

has

withdrawn

the

jacket from Defendant's auction and wishes to engage in private
arbitration

with

Plaintiff.

GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.

Upon

consideration,

the

Court

I. MOTION TO ADD Mr. WAUNFORD-BROWN

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

20(a)(2)

governs

the

permissive joinder of defendants to a lawsuit:
Persons—as

well

as

a

vessel,

cargo,

or

other

property

subject to admiralty process in rem—may be joined in one
action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them
jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect
to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B)

any

question

of

law

or

fact

common

to

all

defendants will arise in the action.

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

20(a)(2)(A)-(B).

In

the

Eleventh

Circuit,

"joinder is ^strongly encouraged' and the rules are construed

generously ^toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of
action consistent with fairness to the

NCO

Fin.

Servs., Inc.,

857

F.3d

833,

parties.'"

839

(11th

Vanover

Cir.

v.

2017)

(quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724
(1966)).

Additionally, "district courts have 'broad discretion

to join parties or not and that decision will not be overturned
as

long

as

choices.'"

it

falls

within

the

district

court's

range

of

Id. (quoting Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th

Cir. 2002)).

The

operative

complaint

in

this

case

states

that

the

present action is, among other things, "an action for trover,
and related relief, seeking the return of property stolen from

Plaintiff's premises at 2604 Washington Road, Augusta, Georgia
2

by third parties, which property is now in the possession of
Defendant as a consignee or other agent."

Georgia

statute

which

"'embodies

trover'" is O.C.G.A. § 51-10-1.

the

(Doc. 31, SI 7.)

common

law

action

The

of

Levenson v. Word, 668 S.E.2d

763, 765 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Grant v. Newsome, 411
S.E.2d 796 (Ga. 1991)).

O.C.G.A. § 51-10-1 states that "the

owner

entitled

of

personalty

is

to

its

possession.

Any

deprivation of such possession is a tort for which an action
lies."

Plaintiff desires to add Mr. Waunford-Brown "to resolve the

issue

of the

right to title

and

possession

of the [Nelson

Jacket]." (Doc. 64, at 1.) Plaintiff claims that through the

discovery process it has "identified [Mr. Waunford-Brown] as the

consignor
Jacket]."

who

currently

(I^)

claims

ownership

of

the

[Nelson

It also alleges that "Mr. Waunford-Brown

procured the stolen [Nelson Jacket] from Defendant in 2012 in a
private sale."

(Id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff's addition of Mr. Waunford-

Brown complies with both requirements of Rule 20(a)(2).

First,

Plaintiff asserts a right to relief against Mr. Waunford-Brown
that "arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series
of transactions or occurrences."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).

The most important question with respect to Plaintiff's claims
to the Nelson Jacket is who owns the Nelson Jacket.

Defendant

refuses to concede that Plaintiff owns the Nelson Jacket because
it wants to auction the

Nelson

Jacket, and

Mr. Waunford-Brown

consigned the Nelson Jacket to Defendant to put up for auction.
Thus, the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence in that it arises out of the attempted sale of the

Nelson Jacket by Mr. Waunford-Brown through Defendant.

Second,

multiple ''question[s] of law or fact common to all defendants
will

arise

in

the

action."

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

20(a)(2)(B).

Defendant's proper possession of the Nelson Jacket as consignee

depends, at least in part, upon Mr. Waunford-Brown's proper

possession as consignor.

Therefore, both Defendant and Mr.

Waunford-Brown will have to litigate a common question of law

and fact.

Accordingly, Rule 20 allows Plaintiff to add Mr.

Waunford-Brown to the present action.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS KING JACKET CLAIM

Plaintiff's motion also "seeks to dismiss the claims to the [King

Jacket] from this lawsuit." (Doc. 64, at 3.) Plaintiff seeks a voluntary
dismissal of this claim without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41.

Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint to

exclude the claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
1. Rule 41

Rule 41(a)(1)(A) states that a "plaintiff may dismiss an
action

without

a

court

order

by filing . . .
4

a

notice

of

dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a

motion

of

summary

judgment."

(emphasis added).
V.

United

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

41(a)(1)(A)

^^An action," however, is not a claim.

Healthqroup, Inc.,

376 F.Sd

1092, 1106 (11th

Klay
Cir.

2004) (citing State Treasurer v. Barry, 168 F.Sd 8, 19 n.9 (11th
Cir. 1999)).

Thus, while

Rule 41 allows a plaintiff to dismiss all of his claims

against a particular defendant; its text does not permit
plaintiffs to pick and choose, dismissing only particular
claims within an action. A plaintiff wishing to eliminate

particular claims or issues from the action should amend
the complaint under Rule 15(a) rather than dismiss under
Rule 41(a).

Id. (emphasis added).

Accordingly, Plaintiff may not dismiss

the King Jacket claim under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) but must use Rule
15(a) instead.

2. Rule 15

Rule 15(a)(2) states that ''a party may amend its pleading

only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave.

The

requires."

Court

should freely give

leave

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

when

justice

so

Defendant, far from

giving its written consent, affirmatively opposes Plaintiff's
request.

Thus, the Court must decide if

justice so requires"

allowing Plaintiff to amend its complaint.

Although ''leave to amend is freely given when justice so

requires, it is not an automatic right."
F.Sd

1253,

1263

(11th

Cir.

2008)
5

Reese v. Herbert, 527

(citations

and

quotations

omitted).

''A

district

court

may,

in

the

exercise

of

its

inherent power to manage the conduct of litigation before it,

deny such leave where there is substantial ground for doing so,
such as 'undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive 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, [and] futility of
amendment.'"
(1962)).

Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

The grant or denial of a motion to amend is soundly

within the district court's discretion.

After

reviewing

Defendant's

Id. at 1262.

brief

in

opposition

to

Plaintiff's motion, the Court finds no "substantial ground[s]"

for denying Plaintiff's motion.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff's

motion to the extent that the Court dismisses the claim without

prejudice.

But under Rule 15 the Court would not be dismissing

anything.

It would merely be allowing Plaintiff to amend its

complaint.

Defendant also claims that "if this claim

was

dismissed without prejudice, [Plaintiff] could file a separate

lawsuit against GJA relating to the [King Jacket], which could
lead to inconsistent verdicts over the ownership rights to green

jackets generally."

(Doc. 66, 1 2.)

The Court, however, does

not see this as a legitimate risk because the ownership rights

to

the

three

green

jackets

at

different principles of ownership.

issue

rest

upon

completely

Plaintiff alleges that the

Nelson and Butler Green Jackets were very recently stolen from

its premises, but it alleges that the King Jacket was improperly
taken off its grounds by a member decades ago in violation of

protocol.

The claims to the Nelson and Butler Jackets rest upon

whether the jackets were physically stolen, while the claim to

the King Jacket rests upon whether Plaintiff's policies from

years ago can establish that it retains ownership to the King
Jacket.

Thus,

Defendant's

alleged

risk

of

inconsistent

judgments is not a substantial ground for denying Plaintiff's
motion.

Because

Defendant

has

not

instructed

this

Court

as

to

any

substantial grounds for denying Plaintiff leave to amend, and because
the

Court

has found

none

on

its

Plaintiff to amend its complaint.

own

review, the

Court allows

See Thomas v. Town of Davie, 847

F.2d 771, 773 (11th Cir. 1988) (''Unless there is a substantial reason

to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not
broad enough to permit denial." (citations and quotations omitted)).
IV. CONCLUSION

Because joinder of Mr. Waunford-Brown is proper under Rule
20, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion (doc. 64) to add Mr.
Waunford-Brown as a party-defendant to this case.

Similarly,

because the Court sees no substantial reason to deny Plaintiff

leave

to

amend

its

complaint,

the

Court

GRANTS

Plaintiff's

motion (doc. 64) to file an amended complaint under Rule 15.

The

Court,

however, DENIES Plaintiff's motion

claim to the King Jacket under Rule 41.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff

to dismiss its

(Doc. 64.)

SHALL FILE

its

amended

complaint

within seven days of the date of this Order, and the Clerk SHALL

ADD Greg J. Waunford-Brown as a Defendant to this action.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this

day of March,

2018.

jL, chief judge

unite/) states district court
lERN district OF GEORGIA