Pridgeon et al v. Pegram et al
Filing
54
ORDER denying as moot 41 Motion to Dismiss ; denying as moot 42 Motion to Strike ; denying 43 Motion to Strike. Parties are directed to conduct the IAC and file certification by Friday 5/16/14 so that scheduling order may be promptly entered in this case. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 5/13/14. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00467-FDW-DCK
LEE ANN PRIDGEON, L.I.G.
SERVICES INC., AND DOES 1-100,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK RYAN PEGRAM, DEBRA R.
PEGRAM, AND DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Complaint (Doc. No. 41), Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc.
No. 42), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or, in the alternative,
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 43). Upon review by the Court, for the reasons below, Defendants’ Motions
are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 9, 2013, Defendants filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. On August 15,
2013, the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued an Order finding venue
improper in the Eastern District and transferring the case to the Western District. (Doc. No. 36.)
On the same day, the case was transferred to the Western District and assigned to Chief Judge
Frank D. Whitney. On August 20, 2013, this Court communicated with counsel for both parties,
1
directing that all matters pending be refiled in this District pursuant to Judge Whitney’s Standard
Order. After more than twenty-one days had passed and without Defendants having refiled their
Motions to Dismiss and Strike, on September 10, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint without seeking leave of this Court. (Doc. No. 40.)
On September 24, 2013,
Defendants refiled their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 41) and to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’
Complaint (Doc. No. 42). Defendants also filed a Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint or, in
the alternative, to Dismiss and Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 43.)
ANALYSIS
I. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to
seek leave of court or written consent under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a). Leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial
to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment
would have been futile. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson
v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)). The grant or denial of an opportunity
to amend is within the discretion of the District Court. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and finds that although Plaintiffs did not obtain leave
or written consent pursuant to Rule 15(a), requiring Plaintiffs to refile to seek leave to amend
would further delay this proceeding, given that the case has been lingering. This case has a unique
procedural history, and of particular importance to this Court is the fact this case has been pending
for approximately a year and a half without entry of a scheduling order. While this Court
2
adamantly enforces compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and
this Court’s standing orders, Rule 15(a) gives the Court some discretion in this instance. The
Court’s predominant concern at this point is to move this case along. The Court does not find that
Plaintiffs acted in bad faith, the amendment is futile, or the amendment is prejudicial to the
Defendants. Defendants concede in their Memorandum in support of their Motion to Strike that
the “changes between Plaintiffs’ original Complaint and the Amended Complaint are minimal.”
(Doc. No. 43-1.) Under the unique facts and procedural posture of this case and because the
Amended Complaint was filed prior to Defendants’ renewal of their motion to dismiss, the Court
finds that requiring Plaintiffs to seek leave to amend and refile the Amended Complaint would be
a waste of time at this juncture. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte grants Plaintiffs leave to amend
the Complaint and Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint is DENIED. The Court
hereby deems the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 40) as the active Complaint in this matter.
Consequently, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. No. 41) and
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. No. 42) are DENIED AS
MOOT. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that an
amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect).
II. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
Defendants move, in the alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Upon
review by the Court, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to all claims except Plaintiffs’
Copyright Infringement claim. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Copyright Infringement
claim is DENIED AS MOOT because Plaintiffs concede that claim is no longer part of this action.
See Young, 238 F.3d at 573 (holding that a plaintiff waives claims raised in the original complaint
3
but omitted from an amended complaint). This ruling is without prejudice, and Defendants are
free to re-raise the arguments set forth in the Motion again at summary judgment.
For the reasons below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
under Rule 12(b)(7) is also DENIED. Under Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
an action may be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19. In ruling on
a motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary and indispensable party, a court must accept as
true the allegations of the Complaint. Buttar v. November, No. 3:10-CV-668, 2011 WL 2375492,
at *7 (W.D.N.C. June 9, 2011) (citing Davis Cos. v. Emerald Casino, Inc., 268 F.3d 477, 479 n.2
(7th Cir. 2001)). The moving defendant has the burden of showing that a party must be joined for
just adjudication. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Wood, 429 F.3d 83, 92 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court makes a two-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether a party is
necessary to the action pursuant to Rule 19(a). Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Meade, 186 F.3d 435, 440
(4th Cir. 1999). A party is necessary if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be
accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject
of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as
a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of
the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise
inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.
Second, if a party is necessary but cannot be joined, the court must then determine whether
the party is indispensable under Rule 19(b). If the party is indispensable, the court must dismiss
the action. In determining whether a party is indispensable, the court weighs the following factors:
(1) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person
or those already parties; (2) the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the
4
shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; (3) whether a
judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff will have
an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b).
Determinations as to necessity and indispensability are left to the sound discretion of the
trial court. See Coastal Modular Corp. v. Laminators, Inc., 635 F.2d 1102, 1108 (4th Cir. 1980).
However, dismissal of a case for nonjoinder is a drastic remedy and should be employed sparingly.
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Rite Aid of S.C., Inc., 210 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing
Teamsters Local Union No. 171 v. Keal Driveaway Co., 173 F.3d 915, 917-18 (4th Cir. 1999)).
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(7), alleging
that Plaintiffs failed to join Leigh Adams as a necessary and indispensable party. (Doc. Nos. 411, 43.) Upon review, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Ms. Adams is a necessary and
indispensable party. The series of emails Defendants allege implicate Ms. Adams are insufficient,
without more, to make Ms. Adams a necessary party to this action. Further, Defendants have failed
to give a reason why, even if Ms. Adams were a necessary party to this action, she cannot be joined
or is indispensable. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) is DENIED.
III. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibit 8
Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants also move to
Strike Exhibit 8, which is attached to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Under Rule 12(f), a court
may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter on motion by a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, motions to strike under
Rule 12(f) are to be infrequently granted. See Renaissance Greeting Cards, Inc. v. Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., 227 Fed. Appx. 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, disputes over Rule 408 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence should be resolved as evidentiary matters with motions in limine rather
5
than prematurely in Rule 12(f) motions. See Lane v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co., No. 3:10CV-401, 2011 WL 1343201, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2011) (citing TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.
v. Avago Technologies, Ltd., 2010 WL 3034880, at *3-4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2010)). Here,
Defendants move to strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint under Rule 12(f), alleging
that it was part of a compromise and negotiation exchange between the parties under Rule 408 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because Rule 408 is an evidentiary rule, Defendants’ arguments
would be better served in a motion in limine to exclude the document from trial. For the foregoing
reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. No.
41) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc.
No. 42) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint or, in the
alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and to Strike Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED as explained in this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are hereby ORDERED to file their
Certification of Initial Attorneys’ Conference by Friday, May 16, 2014, so that a scheduling order
may be promptly entered in this case.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 13, 2014
1
The Court notes that counsel and the parties were made aware that the pending Motions to Dismiss did not toll any
deadlines in this matter. (Doc. No. 52). Defendants filed their answer on April 10, 2014, which in effect established
joinder of the issues under this Court’s standing orders. The parties were thus required to promptly conduct an
Initial Attorneys’ Conference and file their Rule 26(f) report with this Court in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and this Court’s standing orders. Nevertheless, counsel has failed to timely comply with these rules.
The Court gives counsel until this Friday, May 16, 2014, to comply.
6
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?