Tong v. Wylie et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 66 Motion to Dismiss, granting 71 Motion to Amend, denying as moot 74 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, and granting 76 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Dassault Systemes Simulia K.K. f/k/a Engineous Japan, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge William A. Webb on 11/30/2012. (Marsh, K)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:11-CV-429-WW SIU SHING TONG, ) ) Plaintiff , ) ) v. ) ) DASSAULT SYSTEMES SIMULIA ) CORP., et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ________________________________ ) ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff=s motion to amend his complaint (DE-71). Defendant Dassault Systemes Simulia K.K. (“DSSKK”) has responded to this motion (DE-78), and the matter is now ripe for adjudication. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party=s pleadings may be amended upon written consent of the adverse party or by leave of court. Leave to amend the pleadings "shall be freely granted when justice so requires." The liberal policy for allowing amendments to pleadings should be followed unless the Court finds a justifying reason for disallowing the amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). It is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend without finding a justifying reason. Id. In all instances, leave to amend should be given freely in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, improper motive, futility, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or some other justifying reason. Bireline v. Seagondollar, 567 F.2d 260 (4th Cir. 1977). The undersigned has reviewed the proposed amendments and does not find them to be futile on their face. Similarly, in the current procedural posture of this case, a final amendment will not lead to undue delay, nor will it unduly prejudice DSSKK. Given the liberal standard for permitting amendment, Plaintiff=s motion to amend (DE-71) is GRANTED. However, any further amendments will be strongly disfavored. Based on this ruling, DSSKK’s pending motion to dismiss (DE-66) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Likewise, DSSKK’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply regarding its motion to dismiss (DE-74) is DENIED AS MOOT. Finally, DSSKK’s request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (DE-76) is GRANTED. DSSKK shall file its response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint no later than December 26, 2012. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Raleigh, North Carolina on Friday, November 30, 2012. ____________________________________ WILLIAM A. WEBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?