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)

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