Starnes, et al v. A.O. Smith Corporation, et al

Filing 197

ORDER denying as moot 133 Motion to Dismiss; granting 175 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 04/12/2013. (thh)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00360-MR-DLH

RALPH ONEIL STARNES, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant Invensys
Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 133] and Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File Amended Complaint [Doc. 175].
Defendant Invensys Systems, Inc. has moved to dismiss the
Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to plead their allegations with sufficiently particularity.
[Doc. 133].

In response to the Defendant’s Motion, the Plaintiffs have

moved for leave to file an amended complaint. [Doc. 175]. Defendant
OakFabco, Inc. opposes the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. [Doc. 177].

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs
have twenty-one (21) days from service of a motion to dismiss to amend
their Complaint as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). With
respect to the Plaintiffs’ claims asserted against Defendants who have
already answered, the Plaintiffs are required to seek either consent of the
opposing parties or leave of Court to file an Amended Complaint, thereby
necessitating the present motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The Court is mindful that Rule 15 embodies “a relatively liberal
amendment policy.” See Cook v. Howard, 484 F. App’x 805, 814 (4th Cir.
2012). Thus, absent a showing of prejudice, bad faith, or undue delay,
leave to amend should be, as stated by the Rule, “freely given.”

Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9
L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
Having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the Court
concludes that the Defendants would not suffer any undue prejudice by the
filing of the Amended Complaint. Nor has it been shown that the Plaintiffs’
filing was untimely or in bad faith. For these reasons, the Court will grant
the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.

2

Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant
Invensys Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 133] is DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint [Doc. 175] is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs shall file
their Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 12, 2013

3