AdvoCare International, LP v. Modere, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 8 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Add Parties filed by AdvoCare International, LP. Plaintiff Advocare International, LPs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Add Parties (Dkt. #8) is hereby GRANTED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/14/17. (cm, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00194
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Advocare International, LP’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint and Add Parties (Dkt. #8). Having considered the pleadings, the Court finds
the motion should be granted.
On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Original Complaint (Dkt. #1). On June 5, 2017,
Plaintiff filed the pending motion for leave to file an amended complaint and add parties (Dkt. #8).
On June 19, 2017, Defendant filed a response (Dkt. #10). On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply
On June 28, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order in this matter (Dkt. #13). The
scheduling order sets the deadline to add parties for June 28, 2017 and the deadline for Plaintiff to
file amended pleadings for September 8, 2017 (Dkt. #13).
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend its
pleading once without seeking leave of court or the consent of the adverse party at any time before
a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After a responsive pleading is served, a party
may amend only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Id. Rule 15(a)
instructs the court to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The rule ‘“evinces a bias in
favor of granting leave to amend.’” Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Lyn–Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2002)).
But leave to amend “is not automatic.” Matagorda Ventures, Inc. v. Travelers Lloyds Ins. Co., 203
F. Supp. 2d 704, 718 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (citing Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594,
598 (5th Cir. 1981)). Whether to allow amendment “lies within the sound discretion of the district
court.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 952 F.2d 841, 845–46 (5th Cir. 1992). A district court reviewing
a motion to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) may consider “whether there has been ‘undue delay,
bad faith or dilatory motive, . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of
amendment.’” Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Southmark
Corp., 88 F.3d 311, 314–15 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Plaintiff seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint and Add Parties to add claims against
Amber DeLoof and Jessie Lee Ward (Dkt. #8). Plaintiff states that the additional parties and claims
are based on facts discovered through the continuing investigation of this matter (Dkt. #8 at p. 3).
Defendant argues the Court should not permit Plaintiff to amend its complaint and add parties
because Plaintiff seeks leave to amend due to bad faith and dilatory motive and allowing Plaintiff
to amend will prejudice Defendant (Dkt. #10).
Plaintiff filed its motion for leave to file an amended complaint and add parties shortly
after the inception of the lawsuit and in advance of the Court entering a scheduling order setting
deadlines to add parties and file amended pleadings. Plaintiff states that it seeks leave to amend
based on information obtained through continued investigation of this matter. The Court does not
find that Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to unduly prejudice Defendant, cause undue delay, or in
bad faith. The Court therefore will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint
and add parties.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Advocare International, LP’s Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint and Add Parties (Dkt. #8) is hereby GRANTED.
SIGNED this 14th day of July, 2017.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?