International Mulch Company, Inc. v. Novel Ideas, Inc.

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff International Mulch Company, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28 ) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 9/11/2014. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL MULCH COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NOVEL IDEAS, INC.,
JOHN S. WINK, and
SOUTH BEND MODERN MOLDING, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV446 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff International Mulch Company, Inc.’s (“IMC”)
Motion for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28). The motion is fully
briefed and ready for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
motion.
Background
On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff IMC filed a four count Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
against Defendant Novel Ideas, Inc. (“Novel”), seeking a declaration of non-infringement of two
landscape edging patents held by Novel and John S. Wink. (Compl., ECF No. 1) IMC also
sought a declaration that the patents at issue were invalid. (Id.) IMC filed an Amended
Complaint as of right on June 16, 2014, adding John S. Wink (“Wink”), the inventor of the
patented landscaping products, and South Bend Modern Molding, Inc. (“South Bend”). (First
Am. Compl., ECF No. 14). In addition, IMC alleged breach of contract (Count V) and tortious
interference with business expectancy (Count VI). (Id.) On July 30, 2014, IMC filed the present
Motion for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint, seeking to provide additional factual

content to its breach of contract claim against Novel and its tortious interference claim against
Wink and South Bend. (Mot. for Leave, ECF No. 28) Defendants Novel and Wink filed a
memorandum in opposition on August 6, 2014, claiming that the counts for breach of contract
and tortious interference are frivolous. (Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 33) Thus, Defendants argue
that the Court should deny IMC leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Id.)
Discussion
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend a
pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the pleading or, in all other
cases, with written consent of the opposing party or by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Here, IMC contends that the proposed Second Amended Complaint provides additional
factual content to Counts V and VI and that, because the Court has not yet held a Rule 16
scheduling conference or issued a Case Management Order, allowing IMC to file an amended
complaint would not prejudice any party. Defendants Novel and Wink argue that the Court
should deny IMC’s motion because such amendments are futile. Defendants assert that the
proposed amended complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).
The Court finds that, in the very early stages of litigation, leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint is warranted. The Court has not yet held a Rule 16 conference or entered a Case
Management Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. The initial joint scheduling plan filed by the
parties on July 10, 2014 allowed for joinder of parties or amendment of pleadings through
November 17, 2014. (Joint Scheduling Plan 1, ECF No. 22) Further, Defendants have not filed
an Answer to the First Amended Complaint and will not be prejudiced by answering the Second

2

Amended Complaint. Thus, justice requires amendment of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). See Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 4:08CV1534 ERW, 2013 WL 1282248, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. March 26, 2013) (quoting Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir.
2008)) (leave to amend sought before the deadline for amendments in a Rule 16 scheduling order
should be freely given unless compelling reasons exist to deny the motion such as “’undue delay,
bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment’”). The Court
finds no compelling reason to deny IMC’s motion. The undersigned is aware of Defendants’
argument that Counts V and VI of the Second Amended Complaint are subject to dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6). However, a motion to dismiss is not properly before this Court, and
Defendants are free to file such a motion in the future.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff International Mulch Company, Inc.’s Motion
for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.

Dated this 11th day of September, 2014.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3