Petzel v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs motion to amend, Doc. No. 12 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 7/02/13. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CATHERINE PETZEL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:12-cv-1066
Judge Economus
Magistrate Judge King
v.
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend”), Doc. No.
12.
Defendants Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., and Karen Finley
(collectively “defendants”) oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend on the
basis that amendment would be futile.
Defendants’ Brief in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Doc. No.
13.
Plaintiff has filed a reply.
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Her
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply”), Doc.
No. 15.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is
GRANTED.
I.
Standard
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is governed by Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
That rule provides that “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
“[T]he thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce
the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than
the technicalities of pleadings.’”
Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d
557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639
(6th Cir. 1982)).
The grant or denial of a request to amend a
complaint is left to the broad discretion of the trial court.
General
Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).
In
exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such factors
as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance
of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.”
Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
“A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
Rose v. Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing
Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 382-83
(6th Cir. 1993)).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the
legal sufficiency of the complaint.
See Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon
Steel Co., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983).
In determining whether
dismissal on this basis is appropriate, a complaint must be construed
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded
facts must be accepted as true.
See Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96
F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 1996); Misch v. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., 896 F.
Supp. 734, 738 (S.D. Ohio 1994).
The United States Supreme Court has
explained that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be
supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations
in the complaint.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546
2
(2007).
However, a plaintiff’s claim for relief “requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do.”
Id. at 555.
“Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level . . . .”
Id.
Accordingly, a complaint must be dismissed – and
amending a complaint is futile – if the complaint does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”
II.
Id. at 570.
Discussion
Plaintiff Catherine Petzel filed this action on November 19,
2012.
Complaint, Doc. No. 1.
On April 19, 2013, defendant Karen
Finley filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for
lack of personal jurisdiction, Doc. No. 5.
On May 31, 2013, plaintiff
filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, seeking leave to amend the
Complaint “to allege the factual underpinnings that she believes
establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the
individual defendants in this matter.”
pp. 1-2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend,
The amended complaint, plaintiff argues, will “allow this
Court to resolve th[e] anticipated issue of personal jurisdiction on
the merits, as opposed to resolution of the issue on a pleading
deficiency.”
Id. at p. 2.
As noted supra, defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend on
the basis of futility.
Defendants’ Response, p. 2.
Specifically,
defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend “should be denied
because the issue of personal jurisdiction is already before the
Court” and “[t]here is no reason that Plaintiff cannot develop any
3
alleged facts and/or legal arguments that she apparently intends to
include in her Amended Complaint in her brief in opposition to
[defendant] Finley’s Motion to Dismiss.”
Id. at pp. 2-3.
Defendants’ Response misconstrues the standard for futility of
amendment.
As discussed supra, “̔[a] proposed amendment is futile if
the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.’”
Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 512
(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rose, 203 F.3d at 420).
The fact that
plaintiff could have responded to defendant Finley’s motion to dismiss
rather than seek leave to file an amended complaint is therefore not
germane to the determination of futility of amendment.
Although it is preferred that parties file a proposed amended
complaint when seeking leave to amend, plaintiff has not tendered a
proposed amended complaint.
Nevertheless, plaintiff represents that
her amendment will cure the alleged jurisdictional deficiencies in the
Complaint.
There is no suggestion of undue delay or bad faith on
plaintiff’s part in filing Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, and defendants
will not suffer undue prejudice if the requested amendment is
permitted.
Notably, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend was filed prior to
the preliminary pretrial conference, at which the parties were granted
until October 1, 2013 to file motions or stipulations for leave to
amend the pleadings.
See Preliminary Pretrial Order, Doc. No. 17.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 12, is
GRANTED.
Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint within
seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
4
The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove Doc. Nos. 5 and 12 from the
Court’s pending motions list.
July 2, 2013
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?