Manuel v. Turner Industries Group, LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER: Plaintiff shall file a Reply addressing the futility arguments raisedin Prudential's 44 Opposition no later than August 17, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 8/4/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL N. MANUEL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-599-SDD-RLB

TURNER INDUSTRIES
GROUP, LLC AND THE
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA

ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 40)
filed an Opposition on July 13, 2015. Defendant The Prudential Insurance Company of
America (“Prudential”) filed an Opposition (R. Doc. 44) on July 27, 2015.
In its Opposition, Prudential argues that to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add claims
pursuant to Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”),29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3); Section 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140; and state law, those amendments
are futile and should not be allowed. (R. Doc. 44).
After the period for amending as a matter of course elapses, “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Id.; see Martin's Herend
Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading U.S.A. Co., 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999) (Rule 15
“evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.”). The court may consider several factors
when determining whether to grant leave to amend, including “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.” See Rhodes v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 654 F.2d 1148, 1153 (5th Cir.
1981) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Plaintiff does not address whether the amendments sought are futile in support of his
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (R. Doc. 40).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Reply addressing the futility arguments raised
in Prudential’s Opposition no later than August 17, 2015.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 4, 2015.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE