Hudson et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 33

ORDER granting 30 Motion to Amend Complaint. The Clerk shall docket the proposed Amended Complaint for Damages [Doc 30-1], as the Amended Complaint in this matter. If the parties desire to supplement their briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, they shall do so on or before August 30, 2013.Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 08/06/2013. (KAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
FAYE HUDSON and WILLIAM HUDSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO., and
JOHN DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-CV-083
(JORDAN/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 30]. Plaintiffs
move the Court to allow them to modify their Complaint to incorporate facts revealed in recent
depositions. [Id. at 1]. The Plaintiffs have attached the proposed Amended Complaint to their
Motion to Amend Complaint, [Doc. 30-1]. Plaintiffs note that leave to amend should be freely
given and maintain that the proposed amendments may defeat the Defendant’s statute of
limitations defense.
The Defendant has responded in opposition to the Motion to Amend.

[Doc. 32].

Defendant argues that the Court should not delay ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment to
allow Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint. [Id. at 1]. Further, Defendant maintains that the
Plaintiff’s argument regarding the statute of limitations is futile.

[Id. at 2].

Finally, the

Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is deficient under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure because Plaintiffs do not discuss factors often considered by courts in deciding
such motions. [Id. at 4].
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs that, where an amendment is not
made as a matter of course, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The Court has considered the Defendant’s objections, but in this case, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs should be allowed an opportunity to amend. First, the Court finds that the amendment
will cause little delay in the disposition of the pending dispositive motion, and the amendment is
unlikely delay the trial set to commence January 15, 2014. Second, the Court cannot say, based
upon the filings before the undersigned, that the proposed amendments are futile. The Defendant
may address any legal deficiencies in the amended pleading by supplementing their dispositive
motion. Finally, the Court finds that discussing the factors considering in analyzing a motion
under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is best practice, but such discussion is not
a condition precedent to the Court granting leave to amend.
Based upon the foregoing and for good cause shown, the Motion to Amend Complaint
[Doc. 30] is GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court SHALL DOCKET the proposed Amended

Complaint for Damages [Doc. 30-1], as the Amended Complaint in this matter. If the parties
desire to supplement their briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, they shall do so on or
before August 30, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

2