Sears Logistics Services, Inc. v. Phoenix Warehouse

Filing 41

OPINION AND ORDER granting 30 Motion to Substitute Party, which the Court construes to be a motion for leave to amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 10/29/2015. (agm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Sears Logistics Services,
Inc.,

:

Plaintiff,

:

v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-999

:

Phoenix Warehouse,
Defendant.

:

JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion to substitute
filed by Sears Logistics Services, Inc. (“Sears”) (Doc. 30).
Phoenix Warehouse (“Phoenix”) filed an opposition to the motion
(Doc. 36), and Sears filed a reply brief (Doc. 38).
Consequently, the motion has been briefed fully and is ripe for
resolution.

For the reasons that follow, the Court will construe

the motion to substitute to be a motion for leave to amend, and
the Court will grant the motion.
I. Background
On September 4, 2015, Sears filed a motion requesting that
this Court substitute Innovel Solutions, Inc. as the proper party
plaintiff in this case due to a corporate name change.
30).

(Doc.

Phoenix filed an opposition to the motion on the ground

that the motion was improperly brought as a motion to substitute,
as opposed to a motion for leave to amend.

(Doc. 36).

In the

opposition, Phoenix argues that “the proper vehicle to address
Plaintiff’s misnomer is a motion to amend, as opposed to
substituting a party (given it is the same party with a new
name).”

Id. at 1.

Phoenix further indicated that it would not

oppose a motion for leave to amend or an order by the Court sua
sponte amending the name of the party plaintiff.

In reply, Sears

maintains that amendment is not required and that substitution is
the proper mechanism by which to accomplish the name change.
Sears does, however, state that “if the Court determines that
substitution requires an amended pleading, [it] certainly is
willing to file one.”

(Doc. 38 at 2).
II. Discussion

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally
governs motions to amend a pleading.

Rule 15(a)(2) states that

when a party is required to seek leave of court in order to file
an amended pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.”

Under Rule 15(a), the Court has discretion

as to whether to grant amendment.

See Lee v. Shulman, 2013 WL

1773615, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 5, 2013), citing Robinson v.
Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 918 F.2d 579, 591 (6th Cir.
1990)(“Decisions as to when justice requires amendment are left
to sound discretion of the trial judge”).

At least one court

within this district has held that amendment is the proper
mechanism for reflecting a corporate name change in pending
litigation.

See B.F. Goodrich FlightSystems, Inc. v. Insight

Instruments Corp., 1992 WL 193112, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 25,
1992)(Kinneary, J.).

Courts outside of the Sixth Circuit have

also adopted this view.

See e.g., Wilson Distilling Co. v. Foust

Distilling Co., 60 F. Supp. 373, 374 (M.D. Pa. 1945) (granting
plaintiff’s motion to amend “for the purpose of reflecting in the
pleadings the change in corporate name which has taken place
during the pendency of this litigation”); Chiquita Int’l Ltd. v.
M/V Cloudy Bay, 2009 WL 3241541, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009)
(granting the motion to amend and finding that amending the case
caption to reflect corporate name change would not unduly
prejudice the defendants).
As set forth above, to the extent that the Court may
construe the motion to substitute to be a motion for leave to
-2-

amend, Phoenix does not oppose it.

Thus, the Court will construe

the motion to substitute filed by Sears to be a motion for leave
to amend, and the Court, in its discretion, will grant the
motion.

Consequently, the case caption and all filings in this

proceeding will be amended such that the name Innovel Solutions,
Inc. will appear in place of the name Sears Logistics Services,
Inc.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court construes the
motion to substitute to be a motion for leave to amend.

The

motion is granted, and the case caption and all filings in this
proceeding are amended such that the name Innovel Solutions, Inc.
appears in place of the name Sears Logistics Services, Inc.
(Doc. 30).
IV. Procedure on Objections
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),

Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt.
I., F., 5.

The motion must specifically designate the order or

part in question and the basis for any objection.

Responses to

objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and
replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter.
The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set
aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the
filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge
or District Judge.

S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.
/s/Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-