Enterprise Bank & Trust v. Centrue Bank
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant/counter plaintiff Centrue Bank's motion for leave to file first amended counterclaims is GRANTED. [Doc. 24] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff/counter defendant Ente rprise Bank & Trust's motion to dismiss Centrue Bank's original counterclaim is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 14] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Centrue Bank shall file a non-stamped version of its First Amended Counterclaims on or before March 25, 2016.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 3/23/2016. (MRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ENTERPRISE BANK & TRUST,
No. 4:15-CV-1188 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant/counter plaintiff Centrue Bank’s (“Centrue”)
motion for leave to file first amended counterclaims. Plaintiff/counter defendant Enterprise
Bank & Trust (“Enterprise”) opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the motion will be
Centrue files its motion for leave to file its amended counterclaims after reviewing the
initial disclosures filed by Enterprise pursuant to Rule 26(a). Centrue states that through these
disclosures it has learned additional facts in support of its counterclaims. Enterprise opposes the
motion for leave to amend, stating that the amended counterclaims fail to cure the deficiencies of
the original and that Centrue has stated only one substantive addition. Currently pending before
the Court is Enterprise’s motion to dismiss Centrue’s original counterclaim.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend shall be freely given
when justice so requires. Unless there is a good reason for denial, 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, leave to amend should be
granted. There is no absolute right to amend. However, a motion to amend should be denied on
the merits only if it asserts clearly frivolous claims or defenses. Likelihood of success on the
new claim or defenses is not a consideration for denying leave to amend unless the claim is
clearly frivolous. Whether to grant a motion for leave to amend is within the sound discretion of
the court.” Becker v. University of Neb. at Omaha, 191 F.3d 904, 907-08 (8th Cir. 1999)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, Centrue seeks to file its amended counterclaims well in advance of the July 1, 2016
deadline for amending such pleadings. The Court finds no undue delay or bad faith motive on
the part of Centrue, and finds no prejudice to Enterprise in allowing the proposed amendment.
The amendment cannot be characterized as clearly frivolous, and the Court finds no reason to
deny leave to file such amendment. For these reasons, the Court will grant Centrue leave to file
its proposed amended counterclaims. The First Amended Counterclaims attached to Centrue’s
motion, however, contains a “DRAFT” stamp on its title page. The Court will order Centrue to
file a clean version of the First Amended Counterclaim, without such stamp.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant/counter plaintiff Centrue Bank’s motion for
leave to file first amended counterclaims is GRANTED. [Doc. 24]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff/counter defendant Enterprise Bank &
Trust’s motion to dismiss Centrue Bank’s original counterclaim is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 14]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Centrue Bank shall file a non-stamped version of its
First Amended Counterclaims on or before March 25, 2016.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2016.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?