Kaplan et al v. Evans et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINTS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 36]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 38]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A Baker on 12/22/11. (TRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE KAPLAN, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRETT EVANS, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11-CV-00153-NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINTS
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.1 [Doc. 36];
[Doc. 38]. Defendants filed memorandum in opposition to both motions. [Doc. 37]; [Doc. 39].
Plaintiffs filed a reply. [Doc.40]. Having fully considered the arguments set forth by the parties
and the proposed amendments to the complaint, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to
file the amended complaints..
Procedural Background
On January 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the instant action. [Doc. 1]. On April 15, 2011, the
Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file their First Amended Complaint. [Doc. 24]; [Doc. 25]. On
April 18, 2011, the Court entered a Case Management Order in this matter, under which
additional parties were to be joined in this action no later than May 13, 2011 and discovery was
to be completed by January 13, 2012. [Doc. 21]. On September 23, 2011, over five months after
the expiration of the date to join additional parties, and after Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United
States Magistrate.

First Amended Complaint had been fully briefed, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File their
Second Amended Complaint, to which Defendants objected. [Doc. 36]. Two weeks later, on
October 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File their Third Amended Complaint.
[Doc. 38]. The proposed second and third amended complaints seek to add class allegations to
the facts and claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
Discussion
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court should
"freely" give leave to amend pleadings "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
However, a Court may deny leave to amend a complaint where the proposed amendments do not
cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. Detroit Gen. Ret. Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 621
F.3d 800, 809 (8th Cir. 2010) (District Court may deny leave to amend on the basis of futility);
U.S. ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 558 (8th Cir. 2006) (District Court did
not err in denying leave to amend where proposed amendments did not eliminate the complaint's
deficiency of failing to satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b)); see also Process
Controls Intern., Inc. v. Emerson Process Mgmt., No. 4:10CV645 CDP, 2011 WL 403121, at *2
(E.D. Mo. Feb. 1, 2011) (denying motion to amend in part because the proposed amendments
failed to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint).
Here, the proposed amendments, in both proposed complaints, fail to cure the
deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint. Specifically, the proposed second and third
amended complaints allege RICO violations, but they fail to adequately plead the required
elements of bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, and the proposed amended complaints fail to
satisfy the heightened standards of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
proposed amended complaints propose very few, if any, new substantive facts; instead, the
proposed complaints merely attempt to transform the allegations contained in the First Amended
2

Complaint into class allegations by adding class language to the facts of the First Amended
Complaint. Therefore, the Court finds that the proposed amendments are futile, and the Court
denies Plaintiffs motions for leave to file the amended complaints. See Detroit Gen., 621 F.3d at
809; Joshi, 441 F.3d at 558; Process Controls Intern., 2011 WL 403121, at *2.
As noted above, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint. [Doc. 24]. The parties fully briefed that motion. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is addressed in a separate Memorandum and Order, entered
on this same day.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 36].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended
Complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 38].

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2011.

/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3