Van Dyke v. Retzlaff
Filing
125
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 112 ) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 89 ) and Defendant's First Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. # 110 ) are DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/30/2020. (daj, )
Case 4:18-cv-00247-ALM Document 125 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3022
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JASON LEE VAN DYKE
v.
THOMAS RETZLAFF, a/k/a DEAN
ANDERSON, d/b/a VIA VIEW FILES LLC,
and VIA VIEW FILES
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-247
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jason Lee Van Dyke’s Amended Motion for Leave to
File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. #112). After reviewing the relevant pleadings and motions,
the Court finds that the Motion should be granted.
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Thomas Retzlaff in the 431st
State District Court of Texas. On April 10, 2018, Defendant removed the case to federal court.
Plaintiff’s claims concern numerous allegedly harassing, false, and defamatory statements and
publications made by Defendant about Plaintiff.
On April 10, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens
Participation Act (“TCPA”) (Dkt. #5), which the Court denied as moot pursuant to Plaintiff’s
amended complaint (Dkt. #53). As a result, on May 22, 2018, Defendant filed his Second
Amended TCPA Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #44). On July 24, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s
motion finding that the TCPA is inapplicable in federal court (Dkt. #71). On July 30, 2018,
Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. #74). Additionally, Defendant filed an Unopposed
Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Dkt. #75). On July 31, 2018, the Court
granted Defendant’s emergency motion and stayed the case (Dkt. #79).
Case 4:18-cv-00247-ALM Document 125 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3023
On October 22, 2019, the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court’s ruling and held that—pursuant
to the recently decided Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2019)—the TCPA does not apply
in federal court (Dkt. #104). After the Fifth Circuit’s mandate issued on December 23, 2019
(Dkt. #104), the parties filed several motions, including Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to
File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. #112), intended to replace Plaintiff’s prior motion for leave
(Dkt. #89). Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave and filed his response on
January 27, 2019 (Dkt. #120). Plaintiff replied that same day (Dkt. #122).
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend its pleading
once at any time before a responsive pleading is served without seeking leave of court or the
consent of the adverse party. 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)).
2
Case 4:18-cv-00247-ALM Document 125 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3024
The Court has discretion to deny a request to amend if amendment would be futile.
Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, 872–73 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Futility in
the Rule 15(a) context means that the complaint, once amended, would still fail to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Id. at 873.
ANALYSIS
Before turning to the analysis, the Court reminds both parties that the Court encourages
cooperation between parties and civility in discourse. The Court acknowledges that the parties
here despise each other. But the Court expects this disdain to be absent from the tone of the
briefing and the arguments moving forward.
Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint on three main grounds: (1) the record demonstrates Plaintiff has unduly delayed; (2)
Plaintiff’s motion was made with bad faith; and (3) amendment would be futile (Dkt. #120). The
Court is unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments. Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted leave to file his
Third Amended Complaint.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint (Dkt. #112) is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
(Dkt. #89) and Defendant’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) (Dkt. #110) are DENIED as moot.
3
Case 4:18-cv-00247-ALM Document 125 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3025
SIGNED this 30th day of January, 2020.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?