TFFI Corp. v. Williams et al

Filing 80

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 76 Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/20/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
TFFI CORP. D/B/A TOP FUNDING,
INC.
v.

:
:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-1809

:
WILBERT WILLIAMS, ET AL.
:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff TFFI Corp., commenced this action on June 21,
2013, by filing a complaint against Defendants Wilbert Williams,
Alpha

Technology

Systems,

Inc.

(“ATS”),

Williams

Holdings, LLC (“Williams Global”), and Kamran Jones.
1).

Global
(ECF No.

Defendant Jones responded by filing an answer denying all

alleged wrongful acts.

(ECF No. 20).

Defendant Williams filed

an answer invoking the Fifth Amendment and declining to respond
to the allegations.

(ECF No. 37).

On January 24, 2014, the

court entered a scheduling order, establishing a July 8, 2014
deadline for filing dispositive pretrial motions.
Due

to

the

anticipated

release

of

a

related

(ECF No. 39).
report

by

the

Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“OIG Report”), the court, on multiple occasions,
modified the scheduling order, extending the time allowed for
filing

of

dispositive

motions.

The

most

recent

order

was

entered on June 5, 2015 and stated that dispositive motions

would be due 30 days after the court adjudicates Plaintiff’s
then-anticipated motion for leave to amend.

(ECF No. 75).

Plaintiff, after receiving the OIG Report, moved for leave
to

amend

its

complaint

on

June

21,

2015.

(ECF

No.

76).

Plaintiff’s request seeks to remove Defendant Jones as a party
to the case.

Plaintiff also seeks to modify its complaint to

clarify that ATS and Williams Global are “persons” for the sake
of

Plaintiff’s

alleged

civil

conspiracy

charge

under

the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).
Rule 15(a)(1) permits a party to amend its pleading once as
a matter of course within 21 days after serving it; or 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.
“In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with
the opposing party's written consent or the court’s leave.
court

should

freely

give

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

leave

when

justice

so

The

requires.”

This liberal rule gives effect to the

federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits,
rather

than

disposing

of

them

Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th

on

technicalities.

leave

to

amend

only

v.

Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)).
deny

Laber

when

“the

The court should

amendment

would

be

prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on
the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.”
2

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999)
(internal

citation

and

quotation

marks

omitted);

Keller

v.

Prince George's Cnty., 923 F.2d 30, 33 (4th Cir. 1991) (upholding
district

court

order

denying

plaintiff

leave

to

amend

his

complaint to include claims that were barred by the applicable
statute of limitations because such amendment would be futile).
“An amendment is futile when the proposed amendment is clearly
insufficient or frivolous on its face, or if the amended claim
would still fail to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”

El–Amin v. Blom, No. CCB–11–3424, 2012

WL 2604213, at *11 (D.Md. July 5, 2012) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
Here,

Defendant

Williams

consents

Defendant Jones from the action.

to

the

removal

(ECF No. 77 ¶ 2).

of

Defendant

Williams objects to Plaintiff’s other proposed changes to the
complaint.

Defendant argues that the proposed amended complaint

is futile because removing Mr. Jones from the action eliminates
the

RICO

charge.

(Id.

¶

3).

Plaintiff

counters

that

the

alleged RICO violation is still plausible because Plaintiff is
asserting

that

Defendant

Williams

and

the

two

Defendant

corporations are sufficient to allege an “enterprise” for RICO
purposes.

See Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd v. King, 533 U.S.

158,

(2001)

160

(allowing

a

RICO

3

case

where

the

alleged

conspiracy was between an individual who was president and sole
shareholder of a company and the company itself).
Plaintiff
complaint.

has

met

its

burden

for

leave

to

amend

its

Defendant Williams consents to the removal of Mr.

Jones as a defendant.

Plaintiff makes the other changes to the

complaint in response to new information from the OIG Report,
information that was previously not known due to Defendants’
allegedly fraudulent actions.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend is not made in bad faith; it is made in order to adjust to
newly

discovered

information.

Plaintiff

continually

updated

Defendants and the court about the need for the OIG Report and
timely filed its motion after receiving and reviewing the OIG
Report.
as

it

The amended complaint is not prejudicial to Defendants,
asserts

essentially

the

same

allegations

Finally, the amended complaint is not futile.
viability

of

Plaintiff’s

claims

will

be

and

facts.

Although the
tested

by

the

anticipated dispositive motions, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
amend

alleges

enough

plausible

facts

against

the

remaining

defendants to not be futile.
Accordingly, it is this 20th day of August, 2015, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s

motion

for

leave

to

file

an

amended

complaint (ECF No. 76) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;
4

2.

The clerk is directed to detach and file Plaintiff’s

amended complaint, ECF No. 76-2; and
3.

The

clerk

is

directed

to

transmit

copies

of

the

foregoing Memorandum Opinion and this Order to counsel for the
parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

5