Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc. et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 48 Motion to Amend. Signed by U. S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 4/23/12. (SB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
STURGIS MOTORCYCLE RALLY,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RUSHMORE PHOTO & GIFTS,
INC.; JRE, INC.;
CAROL NIEMANN;
PAUL A. NIEMANN; and
BRIAN M. NIEMANN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. 11-5052-JLV

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc., (“SMRI”) moves the court for
leave to amend its complaint to add Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) as a
defendant in this action. (Docket 48). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, the court
should freely grant motions to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a). “[A] district court’s denial of leave to amend pleadings is
appropriate only in those limited circumstances in which undue delay, bad
faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment, or unfair
prejudice to the non-moving party can be demonstrated.” Roberson v. Hayti
Police Dep’t, 241 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001).
The court finds it appropriate to allow SMRI to amend its complaint as
proposed. SMRI’s motion is timely as SMRI filed its motion before the April
2, 2012, deadline for joining parties and amending the pleadings expired.
See Docket 47 at p. 2. The discovery deadline is September 17, 2012, see

id., so adding Wal-Mart as a party at this early stage will not unduly
protract the litigation. The amendment will not cause undue delay.
Additionally, SMRI filed the motion with a good faith belief joinder of WalMart as a defendant is proper.
The court also finds the amendment is not futile, but rather is proper
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Under Rule 20, joinder of persons as defendants is
appropriate if:
(A)

any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or
in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and

(B)

any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Here, SMRI asserts a right to relief against Wal-Mart
and the existing defendants jointly, severally, or with respect to the same
transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and
questions of liability and damages are common to all defendants. Finally,
the court cannot see how the proposed amendment will prejudice
defendants–a finding bolstered by the fact defendants informed the court
they do not oppose the motion. Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is
hereby
ORDERED that SMRI’s motion to amend (Docket 48) is granted.
Within seven (7) days of this order, SMRI shall file its amended complaint
adding Wal-Mart as a defendant in this action. To avoid undue delay in this

2

case, SMRI shall serve the summons and amended complaint on Wal-Mart
and the existing defendants as soon as possible.
Dated April 23, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3