Venture Global Engineering, LLC et al v. Satyam Computer Services, Ltd.

Filing 53

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 42 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion to File Amended Complaint with an equitable claim. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING, LLC, and
THE LARRY J. WINGET LIVING TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 10-15142

SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD, n/k/a
MAHINDRA SATYAM,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Following the dismissal of their complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint to add factual allegations and a claim to equitably set aside the
judgment of the court in an earlier action. The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion. On
appeal, the Sixth Circuit found the allegations in the original complaint sufficient to plead
a claim of wrongful concealment, and thus rendered moot the portion of Plaintiff’s motion
that sought to add factual allegations. As for the equitable claim, the Sixth Circuit stated:
The only reason the district court gave for denying leave to add the equitable
claim is that a final judgment was in place and plaintiffs never moved the court
to reconsider its ruling or to alter, set aside, or vacate the judgment. But
because we are reversing the dismissal and remanding the action for further
proceedings, we have vacated the judgment. That removes the only barrier
to adding the claim that the district court identified. It is therefore appropriate
for the district court on remand to reconsider plaintiffs’ request for leave to add
their claim for equitable relief.
Venture Global Eng’g, LLC v. Satyam Computer Servs., Ltd., 730 F.3d 580, 590 (6th Cir.
2013). Having reconsidered Plaintiffs’ motion, the court will grant Plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint and add an equitable claim.

Rule 15 allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint “once as a matter of course” within
twenty-one days of a defendant’s Rule 12(b) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
Where, as is the case here, the time to amend pleadings as a matter of course has
expired, a party may nonetheless amend its pleadings by leave of the court, and “[t]he
court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see
also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (stating leave should be freely given,
absent factors “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, [or] futility of
amendment”).
Given that the Sixth Circuit vacated the court’s judgment, granting leave to amend
will no longer result in undue prejudice to Defendants’ interests. The Sixth Circuit has
held that “‘[t]o deny a motion to amend, a court must find at least some significant
showing of prejudice to the opponent.’” Duggin v. Steak ’N Shake, 195 F.3d 828, 834
(6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 562 (6th Cir.1986)).
“The Moore case emphasizes the need for the district court to give reasons for its
decision, and the importance of naming prejudice to the opponent. The court noted that
‘delay alone, regardless of its length is not enough to bar it [amendment] if the other
party is not prejudiced.’” Id. (quoting Moore, 790 F.2d at 560). Moreover, “[a]n
amendment is not prejudicial . . . if it merely adds an additional theory of recovery to the
facts already pled and is offered before any discovery has occurred.” Davis v. Piper
Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir.1980). Because Defendant’s motion to dismiss

2

was previously granted, there was no discovery in this case. Granting Plaintiffs leave to
amend to add an equitable claim will not prejudice Defendant. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint
with an equitable claim.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 22, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, November 22, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\10.15142.SATYAM.GrantLeaveAmend.rljr.wpd

3