Rudolph et al v. Beacon Independent Living, LLC et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting #50 Motion for Leave to Amend Answer, Defendants shall file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims on or before 3/21/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 3/14/2012. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
Civil Action No. 3:11CV617-FDW-DSC
MARY B. RUDOLPH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BEACON INDEPENDENT LIVING
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendants Beacon Independent Living, LLC and
Bruce Bleiman’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Memorandum in Support Thereof,” Doc.
50, filed February 15, 2012 and the parties’ associated briefs, Docs. 52 and 54.
This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), and this Motion is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable authority,
the Court will grant Defendants Beacon Independent Living, LLC and Bruce Bleiman’s Motion for
Leave to Amend Answer.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint, Doc. 1. On December 20,
2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, Doc. 19. Defendants Beacon Independent Living,
LLC and Bruce Bleiman (collectively “Defendants”) filed their original Answer, Doc. 42, on
January 17, 2012.
On January 23, 2012, the Court entered an Order, Doc. 45, granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 22. On February 1, 2012, the Court entered

a Case Management Order, Doc. 47, assigning this case to the fast case management track and
setting a trial date of July 9, 2012. The Order also stated that “[a]ny motion for leave to join
additional parties or otherwise to amend the pleadings shall be filed by February 15, 2012.” Id. at
6.
Defendants seek leave of Court to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims that would
add two new counterclaim Defendants, Dr. George Raad and Robert Rudolph, as well as
counterclaims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty/constructive fraud, unfair and deceptive trade
practices and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs argue that the Motion should be denied because the amended answer is prejudicial
to them , filed in bad faith, and futile. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants failed to confer with
counsel before filing the Motion. In response, Defendants argue that the Motion was timely filed,
is not prejudicial and asserts valid counterclaims. Defendants admit that they did not confer with
Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to filing the Motion due to time limitations under the fast track scheduling
order. Defendants’ counsel contacted opposing counsel on the morning following the filing of the
Motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides in relevant part that “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit has stated that
“under Rule 15(a) leave to amend shall be given freely, absent bad faith, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, or futility of amendment.” U.S. v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 317 (4th Cir. 2000).
Further, “the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District
Court.” Pittston Co. v. U.S., 199 F.3d 694, 705 (4th Cir. 1999).

Applying those legal principles to the record in this case, and expressing no opinion as to the
merits of Defendants’ counterclaims, the Court finds that the proposed amendment should be
allowed. The Court finds that Defendants sought leave to amend within the prescribed time period
under the Court’s Case Management Order. Plaintiffs are not unduly prejudiced by the proposed
amendment. Further, the Court finds that the proposed amendment is offered in good faith and that
the amendment is not futile. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Amend.
III. ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED
1. “Defendants Beacon Independent Living, LLC and Bruce Bleiman’s Motion for Leave
to Amend Answer and Memorandum in Support Thereof,” Doc. 50, is GRANTED, and Defendants
shall file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims on or before March 21, 2012.
2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and Order to counsel for the
parties; and to the Honorable Frank D. Whitney.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 14, 2012