Han v. University of Dayton; University of Dayton School of Law

Filing 24

ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING HAN'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. # 14 ); ORDERING THE CLERK TO DOCKET EXHIBIT 1 TO HANS REPLY (Doc. #21) TO THE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO AMEND AS HAN'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FINDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. # 8 ) AND HANS RULE 56(D) MOTION MOOT 13 . Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 09/06/12. (pb1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
SAM HAN,
Case No. 3:12-cv-140
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
-vUNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, et al.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING HAN’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. #14); ORDERING THE
CLERK TO DOCKET EXHIBIT 1 TO HAN’S REPLY (Doc. #21) TO THE
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO AMEND AS HAN’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FINDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. #8) AND HAN’S RULE 56(D) MOTION
MOOT
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Dr. Sam Han (“Han”) filed an Amended Complaint in this matter on June 21,
2012. (Doc. #6) The Defendants then filed a Motion To Dismiss Han’s Amended Complaint.
(Doc. #8.) In response to the Motion To Dismiss, Han filed a Response that included a Rule
56(D) Motion and a Motion for Leave To File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. #14.) The
Defendants responded to Han’s Motion for Leave To File a Second Amended Complaint that it
should be granted to the extent it is “limited to eliminating patently defective claims” or denied
or stayed pending submission of the actual text of the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
(Doc. # 19.)
In reply to the Defendants Response, Han filed a proposed Second Amended Complaint.
(Doc. #21.) The proposed Second Amended Complaint, among other things, eliminates or
corrects defective claims. (Doc. #21, Ex. 1.)

Leave to file an amended complaint should be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B)(2). “A motion to amend should not be denied unless there is evidence of
undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice to the non-movant or futility.” Ziegler v. IGP Hog
Market, Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 519 (6th Cir. 2001).
The Court is not aware of any undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice to the Defendants
or futility. Therefore, Han’s Motion for Leave To File a Second Amended Complaint is
GRANTED. Han may amend his Compliant one final time. The Clerk is hereby ordered to
docket Exhibit 1 to Han’s Reply To Response To Motion For Leave To File Second Amended
Complaint (doc. #21) as Han’s Second Amended Complaint.
The filing of a Second Amended Complaint renders Defendants Motion To Dismiss
moot. It also renders Han’s Rule 56(D) motion moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this Sixth Day of September, 2012.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-2-