Seratt v. City of Marion, Illinois
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 5 MOTION for Leave to Amend filed by Rodger Seratt. The Court ORDERS that Seratt shall submit a copy of his complaint with a complete signature on or before August 19, 2011, which the Clerk ofCourt shall file as the amended complaint. The Court denies as moot 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by City of Marion, Illinois. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/4/2011. (dka, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODGER SERATT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 11-cv-548-JPG-DGW
CITY OF MARION, ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Rodger Seratt’s motion for leave to file
an amended complaint (Doc. 5).
Because the time for amendment as a matter of right has passed, whether Seratt should be
allowed to amend his complaint is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Rule
15(a)(2) provides that a plaintiff may amend his pleading only with the opposing parties’ written
consent, which Seratt has not obtained, or leave of court, which the Court should freely give
when justice requires. Although the text of the rule has changed in recent years, the rule still
“reflects a policy that cases should generally be decided on the merits and not on the basis of
technicalities.” McCarthy v. Painewebber, Inc., 127 F.R.D. 130, 132 (N.D. Ill. 1989); see
Diersen v. Chicago Car Exch., 110 F.3d 481, 489 (7th Cir. 1997); Woods v. Indiana
Univ.-Purdue Univ., 996 F.2d 880, 883 (7th Cir. 1993). Generally, the decision whether to grant
a party leave to amend the pleadings is a matter left to the discretion of the district court. Orix
Credit Alliance v. Taylor Mach. Works,125 F.3d 468, 480 (7th Cir. 1997); Sanders v. Venture
Stores, 56 F.3d 771, 773 (7th Cir. 1995). A court should allow amendment of a pleading except
where there is undue delay, bad faith, 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, or futility of the amendment. Bausch v. Stryker Corp.,
630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility
LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007)).
None of those circumstances weighing against allowing an amended pleading appear in
the current record. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Seratt’s motion for leave to amend (Doc.
5). However, the Court notes that Seratt has signed his proposed amended pleading as “s/Rodger
Seratt,” the method that would be appropriate for an authorized Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”)
system user to sign electronically filed documents. See ECF Rule 8. However, Seratt is not
authorized to use the ECF system, so he must submit his documents with his full signature
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Every pleading, written motion, and other
paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name--or by a party
personally if the party is unrepresented.”). The Court ORDERS that Seratt shall submit a copy
of his complaint with a complete signature on or before August 19, 2011, which the Clerk of
Court shall file as the amended complaint.
Furthermore, because the City of Marion’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) is directed at the
original complaint, which will no longer be the operative pleading in this case once the amended
complaint is filed, Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999), the Court DENIES as
moot the motion to dismiss (Doc. 3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 4, 2011
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?