Boudreaux v. U S Framing Inc

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER re 137 MOTION to Amend/Correct with opposition filed by Harry Lee Boudreaux is hereby granted.Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 8/23/2018. (crt,Bunting, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
HARRY LEE BOUDREAUX

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-0517

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

U.S. FRAMING, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Amend [Doc. 137] filed by plaintiff Harry
Lee Boudreaux. The motion seeks leaves to file a Third Amended Complaint
clarifying claims against existing defendants. Although the motion states it is
opposed by defendant Javier Hernandez, no formal opposition brief has been filed.
For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings.
Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.”1
1

Rule 15(a) provides:

(a) Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a
matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21
days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a
motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only

In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962), the United
States Supreme Court explained:
Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when
justice so requires’; this mandate is to be heeded.... In the absence of any
apparent or declared reason—such as 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,
etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’
It is well-settled in the Fifth Circuit that leave to amend a complaint, even after
an answer has been filed in a matter, should be freely given. In Dussouy v. Gulf
Coast Investment Corporation, 660 F.2d 594, 597-98 (5th Cir.1981), the court held:
‘Discretion’ may be a misleading term, for rule 15(a) severely restricts
the judge's freedom, directing that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given
when justice so requires’. It evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to
amend. The policy of the federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to
facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation
from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading.
Since Dussouy, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that Rule 15(a) evinces a
liberal amendment policy. See, e.g., Lowrey v. Texas A & M University System, 117
F.3d 242, 245 (5th Cir.1997) (“Rule 15(a) expresses a strong presumption in favor of

with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.
(3) Time to Respond. Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to
an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the
original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading,
whichever is later.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).

liberal pleading”); Nance v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 817 F.2d 1176, 1180 (5th Cir.1987)
(“Federal Rule 15(a) counsels a liberal amendment policy”); Youmans v. Simon, 791
F.2d 341, 348 (5th Cir.1986) (“The policy underlying Rule 15(a) is one in favor of
liberal amendment.”); Foster v. Daon Corporation, 713 F.2d 148, 152 (5th Cir.1983)
(the purpose of Rule 15(a) “is to assist the disposition of the case on its merits, and
to prevent pleadings from becoming ends in themselves”); Chitimacha Tribe of
Louisiana v. Harry L. Laws Company, Inc., 690 F.2d 1157, 1163 (5th Cir.1982)
(district courts should err on the side of allowing amendments), cert. denied, 464 U.S.
814, 104 S.Ct. 69, 78 L.Ed.2d 83 (1983). A motion to amend, therefore, should not
be denied unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d
315, 318 (5th Cir.1998), citing Lefall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d
521, 524 (5th Cir.1994).
Here, although the motion to amend indicates that defendant Javier Hernandez
opposes the amendment, Mr. Hernandez has never formally opposed the motion. This
matter has not been set for trial and there is no Scheduling Order in place. The
undersigned can identify no apparent or declared reason – 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, or futility of amendment, etc. – that would warrant
denying the motion. Considering the liberal amendment policy in this circuit, the

undersigned finds the amendment is proper.
Considering the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [Doc.
137] filed by plaintiff Harry Lee Boudreaux is hereby GRANTED.
Signed in Lafayette, Louisiana, this 23rd day of August 2018.