Sutton v. Agentra et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 44 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint for Damages by Pla Kurt Sutton. AFFORDING Pla to and including 12/2/2024, to file his second amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins on 11/26/2024. (mrm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
KURT SUTTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
AGENTRA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:24-cv-00276-HAB-SLC

OPINION AND ORDER
On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend his complaint (ECF 44),
together with a proposed second amended complaint (ECF 44-1), seeking to amend his
complaint to add a state-law claim of conversion against Defendants. Defendant Transamerica
Life Insurance Company (“Transamerica”) filed a response in opposition to the motion, asserting
that the motion should be denied as untimely and futile. (ECF 45).1 Plaintiff has not filed a reply
brief to the motion, and his time to do so has now passed. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(3). For the
following reasons, the motion to amend will be GRANTED.
A. Applicable Law
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party must seek the Court’s leave or
the written consent of the opposing party when the moving party can no longer amend the
pleadings as a matter of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court “should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires[,]” id., and “the decision as to whether to grant a motion to
amend a complaint is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court[,]” Cohen v. Ill. Inst. of
Tech., 581 F.2d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 1978) (citations omitted). “Courts are to use their discretion
under Rule 15(a) to liberally grant permission to amend pleadings so long as there is not undue
1

Defendant Agentra, LLC, has not filed a response to the motion, and therefore, it apparently does not oppose the
motion.

prejudice to the opposing party or undue delay, bad faith[,] or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant.” Sides v. City of Champaign, 496 F.3d 820, 825 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
B. Analysis
Transamerica first argues that Plaintiff’s motion to amend should be denied due to
untimeliness, asserting that Plaintiff failed to produce new information to justify the “late
amendment.” (ECF 45 at 2 (citation and quotation mark omitted)). But Plaintiff filed the motion
on November 1, 2024, in advance of his November 15, 2024, deadline to seek leave of Court to
amend the pleadings. (ECF 41). Therefore, the motion is timely filed under the Court’s Rule
16(b) Scheduling Order. (See ECF 41). Nor is there any indication that Plaintiff unduly delayed
in filing the motion under Rule 15, given that the Court held the preliminary pretrial conference
less than two months prior to Plaintiff filing the motion. As a result, Transamerica’s objection
based on untimeliness is unfounded.
Transamerica also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied based on futility. In
that regard, Transamerica contends that Plaintiff fails to allege that Transamerica exerted control
over his property, which it claims is a necessary element of a conversion claim. (ECF 45 at 3).
“Futility, in the context of Rule 15, refers to the inability to state a claim, not the inability
of the plaintiff to prevail on the merits.” Robinson v. Lipps, No. 1:12-cv-1-1170-JMS-MJD, 2013
WL 618802, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 19, 2013) (citing Bower v. Jones, 978 F.2d 1004, 1008 (7th
Cir. 1992)). “Unless it is certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be
futile or otherwise unwarranted, the district court should grant leave to amend . . . .” Runnion ex
rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind., 786 F.3d 510, 519-20 (7th Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted).
“[T]he Seventh Circuit has stated that denying a motion for leave to amend is generally
disfavored . . . .” Chen v. Yellen, No. 3:20-CV-50458, 2021 WL 5005373, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct.
2

28, 2021) (citing Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010)). Further, a futility
analysis here would be better addressed in a dispositive motion. “[C]ourts will defer
consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to
amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.” Bentley v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, No.
CV-17-00966-PHX-DJH, 2018 WL 8262769, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2018) (collecting cases).
Transamerica’s argument “even if merited, remain[s] better left for full briefing on a motion to
dismiss.” Id. at *2 (collecting cases); see Chen, 2021 WL 5005373, at *3 (“[C]ourts around the
country have found that futility arguments made in opposition to the filing of an amended
complaint are often better suited for consideration in the context of a motion to dismiss . . . .”
(quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases)).
Therefore, Transamerica’s futility arguments would be “more appropriately raised in a
motion to dismiss . . . when they can be addressed in a more concise manner.” Carteaux v. Town
of Rome City, No. 1:22-cv-00445-HAB-SLC, 2023 WL 2366964, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2023)
(alteration in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court will not
deny Plaintiff’s second motion to amend based on futility, finding the argument premature at this
juncture.
C. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s second motion to amend complaint (ECF 44) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff is AFFORDED to and including December 2, 2024, to file his second
amended complaint (ECF 44-1).
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 26th day of November 2024.
/s/ Susan Collins
Susan Collins
United States Magistrate Judge
3