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)

Download PDF
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-

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?