James T. Scatuorchio Racing Stable, LLC et al v. Walmac Stud Management, LLC et al
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that the plas' 62 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The second amended complaint is deemed filed as of the date of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 5/4/2012.(SCD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-374-JBC
JAMES T. SCATUORCHIO
RACING STABLE, LLC, et al.,
V.
PLAINTIFFS,
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
WALMAC STUD MANAGEMENT,
LLC, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
**********
This matter is before the court upon the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file
second amended complaint, R.62. For the reasons stated below, the motion will
be granted.
The pertinent facts are as follows. The plaintiffs move for leave to file their
second amended complaint after having filed an original complaint on March 30,
2011, and a first amended complaint on April 19, 2011, both in New Jersey state
court. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, and the defendants moved to dismiss the action or
transfer venue to Kentucky. On June 28, 2011, the plaintiffs responded to the
motion and filed a second amended complaint. The action was later transferred to
this court where the defendants renewed their motion to dismiss. During a motion
hearing on February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs were directed to file a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint. The motion is now ripe for review.
1
The court will grant the plaintiffs’ motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2),
because the record shows no “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, futility of amendment” or other reason for denying the plaintiffs the
opportunity to amend. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “In the
absence of any apparent or declared reason . . . the leave sought should, as the
rules require, be ‘freely given,’” and it is in the interests of justice to grant the
leave to amend. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)).
The defendants argue that the motion should be denied for the following
reasons: the plaintiffs delayed the filing of their second amended complaint; the
second amended complaint provides major changes from the prior pleadings; and
the plaintiffs had knowledge of the claims and defendants to be added in the
second amended complaint well before they filed the second amended complaint.
None of these reasons demonstrates undue delay or undue prejudice.
The plaintiffs first filed their second amended complaint on June 28, 2011,
nearly three months after the filing of their original complaint. Even though the
document was not properly before the court at that time,1 the defendants have
been on notice of those claims. The defendants do not argue that they are unduly
1
The plaintiffs argue that case law in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey
rendered the second amended complaint properly filed without leave of court, see Route 27, LLC v.
Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34375, at *7-11 (D.N.J. March 30,
2011)(unpublished). This court relies on controlling authority and interprets Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)
literally to require either consent of the opposing party or the court’s leave before the filing of a
second amended complaint.
2
prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ second amendment to their pleading. No discovery has
been conducted at this time, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to
adjudicate the claims in the second amended complaint, which involve similar facts
and parties, with the current claims. Even though the plaintiffs did not formally file
their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint until nearly a year after
the original complaint was filed, the plaintiffs attempted to file the document only
three months after the original complaint was filed. No deadlines have been set in
this action, and the plaintiffs justify the delay by stating that they were waiting for
contractual deadlines to pass before filing claims that they previously considered
“merely anticipatory.”
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file second amended
complaint, R. 62, is GRANTED. The second amended complaint is deemed filed as
of the date of entry of this order.
3
Signed on May 4, 2012
4
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?