Mumaw et al v. Ohio State Racing Commission et al
Filing
42
Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Related doc # 20 ) is granted. Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint by 2/26/2014. Pending Motions to Dismiss (Related doc #'s 34 , 37 ) are denied as moot. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 2/21/2014. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BENJAMIN MUMAW, ET AL.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
OHIO STATE RACING COMM. ET AL )
)
Defendant.
)
CASE NO. 1:13CV1048
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs’
Complaint (ECF # 20). For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion.
Background Facts
On May 8, 2013, Plaintiffs Benjamin and Joshua Mumaw and Eyes of a Child Stables
filed their Complaint against Defendants Ohio State Racing Commission (“Racing
Commission”), William Crawford, Richard Kinsey, Joseph McCullough, Phillip T. Gore, Jr.,
Caesars Entertainment Corporation and Deborah Jones. On July 31, 2013, Plaintiffs amended
their Complaint removing Caesars Entertainment Corp. and adding Thistledown Racetrack, LLC.
The Complaint alleged 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims for violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, Constitutional violations and abuse
of power claims against the members of the Board of Stewards in their official and individual
capacities; breach of contract, declaratory relief, defamation and false light claims against
Thistledown; and extortion, defamation, libel and false light claims against Defendant Deborah
Jones.
On June 17, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against the
Ohio State Racing Commission. That Motion was denied on June 19, 2013. After the Court’s
ruling denying the TRO, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. On July 26, 2013,
Plaintiffs expressed their intent to file an Amended Complaint. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to
file their Amended Complaint by August 1, 2013. The Court mooted the pending Motions to
Dismiss in light of the new allegations in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their
Amended Complaint on July 31, 2013 and filed a Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint. Defendants filed new Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and oppose
granting Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint.
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
According to Plaintiffs, they want to add a claim for State Action against a private entity
based on discovery of information obtained after filing their original Complaint. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs contend they have been subjected to additional retaliatory actions by Defendants
warranting additional allegations and claims. Finally, based on these additional actions,
Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer the loss of future economic benefits warranting an
additional claim.
Defendants Thistledown Racetrack, LLC, Richard Kinsey and Joel McCullar oppose
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend because Plaintiffs offer no legal basis for amending and
failed to attach a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint to their Motion for Leave.
Plaintiffs reply that they believed they were limited in revising their original Complaint
by the Court’s docket entry granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend to correct the named parties.
Therefore, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, correcting the named parties, then
followed up with their Motion for Leave to Amend to add new claims. Plaintiffs further attached
their proposed Second Amended Complaint to their Reply.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) reads in part, “The court should freely give leave [to amend]
when justice so requires.” However, this liberal amendment policy is not without limits. The
Sixth Circuit has observed, “A motion to amend a complaint should be denied if the amendment
is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing
party, or would be futile.” Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Crawford
v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir.1995)).
While this will be the second amendment and third complaint in less than a year, given
the Sixth Circuit’s liberal application of Rule 15, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
file their Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have adequately explained their reasons for
filing for leave, which demonstrates no bad faith or undue delay. Plaintiffs allegations that
additional adverse acts have taken place since their original Complaint and that their additional
claims only came to light after discovery warrants granting leave to amend. However, the Court
will not allow any further amendments. Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint
no later than February 26, 2014. The pending motions to dismiss are denied as moot due to the
Court’s granting leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: February 21, 2014
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?