Nam et al v. U.S. Xpress, Inc. et al

Filing 212

ORDER granting 174 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 4/3/12. (GRE, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
WILLIAM NAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. XPRESS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-116
Mattice / Lee

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion to amend the complaint [Doc. 174] filed by Plaintiffs William
Nam and Jin Nam. Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause and
to assert additional claims and factual allegations under various legal theories and under both
Tennessee and Georgia state law. Defendants U.S. Xpress, Inc., U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc., U.S.
Xpress Enterprises, Inc. and Sandra Patterson filed a response in opposition to the proposed
amendment [Doc. 187]. Defendants assert that the portion of Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment which
asserts claims pursuant to Georgia state law is improper because Tennessee law, not Georgia law,
applies to this action. Defendants acknowledge that the standard for amendment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15 is a liberal one and do not oppose amendment in general, but object to the
inclusion of any claims based on Georgia state law in Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint and
seek an order striking any Georgia law claims from the amended complaint.
Rule 15 provides that after the time that amendment as a matter of course has expired, a party
may seek consent from the opposing party for any amendment or may move to amend, and “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In
deciding whether to grant a motion to amend, courts should consider undue delay in filing, lack of

notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.”
Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Ctrs., 427 F.3d 996, 1001 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
Here, the deadline for amendment of pleadings set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order
[Doc. 53] was February 28, 2012, and Plaintiffs’ motion to amend was therefore filed timely.
Defendants make no argument with respect to prejudice, futility, or bad faith, and there is no
evidence the amendment would implicate any of these concerns. As the amendment does not fail
for one of the above reasons, the requested amendment will be allowed. This order does not address
Defendants’ argument that the “law of the case” should be applied to strike all claims asserted by
Plaintiffs under Georgia state law, and nothing herein prevents the parties from addressing this issue
in an appropriate dispositive motion. Indeed, Plaintiffs have indicated an intent to file a dispositive
motion on this issue in their reply [Doc. 193].
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint [Doc. 174] is GRANTED and
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file the Amended Complaint within 7 days of the entry of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2