Cities4Life, Inc. v. City of Charlotte et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying as moot 35 Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on Pleadings ; granting 41 Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 4/16/19. (tob)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00670-GCM
DANIEL PARKS
CITIES4LIFE, INC.
PATRICK COURTNEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARK FOWLER
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
JENNIFER ROBERTS
MARCUS D. JONES
CITY OF CHARLOTTE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVICES
KIMBERLY T SAUER
CITY OF CHARLOTTE DIVISION OF
CODE ENFORCEMENT
DOES
BEN KRISE
MANDY EDWARDS,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

)
)
)

THIS MATTER COMES before this Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 41) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. No. 35). The Court has read the briefs, and this matter is now ripe for disposition.
Plaintiffs moved to file a Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15. Rule 15(a)(2) states: “In all other cases, 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. Pro. 15(a)(2). Under Fourth Circuit law, a court should only deny
a proposed amendment when it is prejudicial to another party, due to bad faith of the moving party,

1

or if the amendment is futile. Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs moved this Court to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging several
new causes of action. These causes of action arise from alleged patterns of conduct that are similar
to the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint. Defendants partially oppose this Motion to
Amend on the basis that several of the causes of action would be futile.
The Court will allow the Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended Complaint. The Court finds
that judicial economy favors allowing the amendment. In the Fourth Circuit, futility analysis is
similar to the analysis performed under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in that futility asks if the proposed
amendment fails to state a claim. See Katyle v. Penn Nat’l. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th
Cir. 2011) (“Futility is apparent if the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the
applicable rules and accompanying standards.”) (citations omitted). Here, Defendants ask this
Court to engage in futility analysis to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. Plaintiffs argue that if the Court
denied the amendment, Plaintiffs would be required to file a separate lawsuit and seek
consolidation of the actions.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Judicial economy and the interests of justice require the
Court, in this instance, to allow all claims to be brought under one complaint: the Second Amended
Complaint. Once all claims are properly before the Court, the Court will consider the arguments
made by Defendants in any timely filed motion under Rule 12. This approach prevents duplicative
analysis and allows for the efficient administration of the matter. Thus, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 41).
Defendants’ filed a Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 35) in
this matter. That Motion dealt with the claims as raised in the Amended Complaint. Because the

2

Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, Defendants’ Motion is now moot as written.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion as moot. Defendants are free to refile a motion
to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings relating to the Second Amended Complaint if
Defendants so choose.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 41) and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 35).
SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 16, 2019

3