Williams et al v. Tregre et al

Filing 64

ORDER AND REASONS: GRANTING 62 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk file Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No. [62-8]) into the court record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault on 3/6/2025. (lb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JACOBY WILLIAMS, ET AL.

*

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

*

NO. 23-1095

MIKE TREGRE, ET AL.

*

SECTION “P” DIV. (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before me is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amending Complaint filed by Plaintiffs
Jacoby Williams and Neosha Williams. ECF No. 62. This motion was scheduled for submission
on Wednesday, March 5, 2025. As of this date, no party has filed an Opposition Memorandum,
and the deadline for filing same expired on Tuesday, February 25, 2025. See E.D. La. L.R. 7.5.
Having considered the record, the submission and argument of counsel, the lack of
opposition, and the applicable law, and after finding that the motion has merit, the motion is
GRANTED for the reasons that follow.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs filed this personal injury suit alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations after a St. John
the Baptist Parish deputy shot Jacoby Williams. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that, after Williams
fell asleep while a passenger in a car driven by Defendant Kendell Pembrook, Pembrook placed
an AK-47 assault rifle on the driver’s side of the vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. When Deputy Shaquile
Guerin approached the vehicle and saw the AK-47, he shot Williams and later falsely claimed
Williams reached for the weapon. Id. ¶¶ 12-15. Plaintiffs now seek to amend their Complaint to
correct their mistaken factual assertion that Deputy Guerin saw the AK-47 before shooting now
that discovery has revealed he did not see the weapon before firing. ECF No. 62-1 at 1-13.
Plaintiffs do not seek to add any new claims or new parties.

1

When a party seeks to amend after expiration of the deadline for amending pleadings set
forth in the Scheduling Order, Rule 16(b) requires the party to establish “good cause” before
analyzing the request under Rule 15(a)(2). 1 Thus, Plaintiffs must establish good cause under Rule
16 before the Court may address the request under Rule 15. 2 The four factors relevant to
determining the existence of good cause in the context of post-deadline amendment are: “(1) the
explanation for the failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the
amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice.” 3
If good cause is established, the court then addresses the motion under Rule 15(a)(2), which
specifies that the “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 4 The five
relevant considerations for examination by the court in determining whether to grant leave to
amend a complaint are: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive; (3) repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by previous amendments; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; and (5)
futility of the amendment. 5 Given Rule 15(a)’s “bias in favor of granting leave to amend,” absent
a “substantial reason,” 6 the court’s discretion “is not broad enough to permit denial.” 7

S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
Id.
3
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 536).
4
Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1174 (5th
Cir. 2006). The term “discretion” in this context “may be misleading, because [Rule] 15(a) evinces a bias in favor of
granting leave to amend.” Mayeaux v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 425 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 872 (5th Cir. 2000)). A district court properly exercises its discretion
under Rule 15(a)(2) when it denies leave to amend for a substantial reason, such as undue delay, repeated failures to
cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility. U.S. ex rel. Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir. 2014)
(citation omitted).
5
Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th
Cir. 2003) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962))).
6
Id. at 595 (citation omitted)
7
; Mayeaux, 376 F.3d at 425 (quoting Martin’s Herend Imps., Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading U.S. of Am. Co., 195
F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999); Stripling, 234 F.3d at 872).
1
2

2

In the absence of any filed opposition memoranda to Plaintiffs’ motion and in light of the
fact that the amendment corrects a mistaken factual allegation as to a fact within defendant’s
knowledge and does not add any new claims nor parties, Plaintiffs have established good cause
and there is no substantial reason to deny the request for leave to amend.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and considering the record, the submission and
argument of counsel, the lack of opposition filed by any party, the failure to demonstrate prejudice
from granting leave to amend, and the applicable law,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amending Complaint
(ECF No. 62) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk file Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 62-8) into the court record.

6th day of March, 2025.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____
___________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3