Taylor v. LeBlanc et al
ORDER granting 68 Motion for leave to file an amended complaint. FURTHER ORDERED that 59 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is dismissed without prejudice. LeBlanc shall file her motion to dismiss the new complaint, if any, no later than 07/22/2021. And Taylor shall file his opposition to that motion no later than 07/29/2021. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 07/15/2021. (ko)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JESSIE LEBLANC, ET AL.
Before the Court is plaintiff Erick Taylor’s motion 1 for leave to amend his
complaint a third time. Defendant Jessie LeBlanc opposes the motion. 2
Taylor seeks leave to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2), which dictates that leave to amend shall be freely given when
justice so requires. Taylor acknowledges that this is his third motion for leave to
amend but argues that LeBlanc will not be prejudiced and that the new allegations
are important to his claim. 3
LeBlanc argues that the motion should be denied “on the bases of undue delay,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies, and futility.” 4 The Court rejects LeBlanc’s
arguments about undue delay and futility, and concludes that Taylor’s repeated
amendments, while frustrating, do not merit denial of the instant motion.
R. Doc. No. 68.
R. Doc. No. 70.
3 See R. Doc. No. 68-4, at 3–6.
4 R. Doc. No. 70, at 1.
First, LeBlanc argues that allowing amendment would unduly delay resolution
of this matter and prejudice her because discovery has not commenced, raising the
possibility that trial might need to be continued. 5
That argument begs a question: Why has discovery not commenced? The
answer is simple—and has little to do with Taylor’s amendments. Discovery has not
commenced because LeBlanc filed a motion to stay discovery in this case, which the
Court granted in relevant part. 6 Suffice it to say, then, that the Court finds LeBlanc’s
argument on this point unconvincing.
LeBlanc’s futility argument suffers from a similar defect. She argues that the
proposed amendment should be denied because the new allegations “are not relevant
to determining whether [Taylor] has stated a claim.” 7 Perhaps. But LeBlanc just
filed a reply 8 to Taylor’s opposition to the pending motion to dismiss arguing
exclusively that the Court should ignore the very allegations at issue because they
were raised in an opposition memorandum, not a complaint. Why do that if the
allegations are irrelevant?
Justice requires that the Court grant this motion. But LeBlanc is correct that
Taylor’s “serial requests for leave to amend . . . must end.” 9 Taylor has had numerous
Id. at 2–3.
R. Doc. No. 30 (motion); R. Doc. No. 31 (order granting motion in relevant part).
That order remains in effect because the parties have not sought relief. And the Court
will look skeptically upon a motion to continue trial or other deadlines in this matter
premised upon a failure to complete discovery where the parties explicitly requested
7 R. Doc. No. 70, at 4.
8 R. Doc. No. 63.
9 R. Doc. No. 70, at 4.
opportunities to fine-tune his claims; the Court will not look favorably on further
motions for leave to amend.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an amended complaint is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LeBlanc’s pending motion to dismiss is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LeBlanc shall file her motion to dismiss
the new complaint, if any, no later than JULY 22, 2021. And Taylor shall file his
opposition to that motion no later than JULY 29, 2021.
New Orleans, Louisiana, July 15, 2021.
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?