Kulcsar v. Autozone Inc

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER granting 14 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 17 Motion to Vacate Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; Any amendments to the pleadings to be filed by 4/25/2016. (cc: Plaintiff) Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 3/22/16. (mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JOHN M. KULCSAR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-289-JVB-CAN

AUTOZONE, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff John Kulcsar, who is not represented by counsel, moved for an extension to
amend his Complaint.
A party may amend his pleading beyond the time parameters of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(1) by leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court should freely grant
leave to amend when justice so requires. Id.
However, a court may deny an amendment for reasons 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.” Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Mun. Airport
Comm’n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S 178, 182 (1962)).
Delay alone is usually not a sufficient reason for a court to deny a motion to amend. But a longer
delay tends to create a greater presumption against granting leave to amend. Soltys v. Costello,
520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir. 2008).
If there is no apparent or declared reason not to grant leave to amend, generally “the
leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Cont’l Bank, N.A. v. Meyer, 10 F.3d

1293, 1298 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182). “It is settled that the grant of leave
to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith
Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971); accord, e.g., J.D. Marshall
Int’l, Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 935 F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 1991).
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend. The Court finds that granting leave to
amend will not result in undue delay. Moreover, there is no indication Plaintiff seeks leave to
amend in bad faith, or for a dilatory motive, and Plaintiff has not previously amended his
Complaint. An amendment would not unduly prejudice Defendant. Finally, the Court cannot
conclude at this juncture that an amendment would be futile.
Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Court:
1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to Amend Complaint (DE 14). Plaintiff
may file an Amended Complaint by April 25, 2016;
2) NOTES that if Plaintiff does not file an Amended Complaint by April 25, 2016, the
Court will rule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 10);
3) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss (DE 17).
SO ORDERED on March 22, 2016.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2