1651 North Collins Corp v. Laboratory Corporation of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jennifer B. Coffman on 8/31/11. cc:counsel (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-197-C
1651 NORTH COLLINS CORP.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on 1651 North Collins Corporation’s motion
for leave to file amended complaint (R. 8). Because the court finds pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) that justice so requires, and being otherwise sufficiently
advised, the court will grant the motion.
1651 has moved for leave to file an amended complaint in order to assert
additional facts that were not available to it at the time it filed the complaint, to
increase the amount of damages it seeks to recover, and to add additional costs
related to Laboratory Corporation of America’s (LabCorp’s) alleged breach of
contract. The additional facts and increased damages reflect damage to the
premises that 1651 asserts is beyond normal “wear and tear” and therefore within
the scope of the rental agreement between the parties. LabCorp denies that the
damage is beyond normal “wear and tear” and asserts that the court should not
grant leave to file the amended complaint because the proposed amendment would
be futile, see Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 692 (6th Cir. 2006), as it would
not withstand a motion to dismiss. See Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.,
203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).
The additional facts regarding the alleged exterior damages, which the court
accepts as true, see Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 360 (6th
Cir. 2001), are facts of legal significance that further 1651’s breach of contract
claims, and the increased damages request reflects that legal significance. See
Kottmyer at 692. The same is true for the additional costs asserted in the
proposed amended complaint. These claims would survive a motion to dismiss
and the court will allow 1651 to test its case on the merits. Forman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
LabCorp also contends that the proposed amendments are beyond the
anticipated scope of this litigation and provides a copy of an agreement between
the parties waiving their rights to arbitration in favor of litigation (R. 10-1). This
agreement does not limit the scope of litigation, nor does it waive any rights of the
parties to assert additional claims other than the right to arbitration. The
agreement provides no support for an argument that the court should not grant
Discovery has just begun, and LabCorp has not argued that it would be
prejudiced by the court permitting 1651 to amend its complaint, nor does the court
perceive any such prejudice. LabCorp has provided no viable argument as to why
the court should not freely grant 1651 leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
IT IS ORDERED that motion for leave to file amended complaint (R. 8) is
1651’s amended counterclaim is deemed filed as of the date of this order.
Signed on August 31, 2011
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?