Republic Title of Texas, Inc. v. First Republic Title, LLC
Filing
32
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 26 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is requested to enter Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (doc. 26-1), currently attached to the Motion, as a separate docket entry. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 8/10/2015) (axm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
REPUBLIC TITLE OF TEXAS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST REPUBLIC TITLE, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-3848-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Republic Title of Texas, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint (doc. 26). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Republic Title of Texas, Inc. filed this trademark infringement lawsuit against
Defendant First Republic Title, LLC on October 28, 2014. Doc. 1, Orig. Compl. On January 15,
2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in the case, setting a June 18, 2015 deadline to join
parties and amend pleadings. See doc. 14. On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff timely filed the present Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Doc. 26, Pl.’s Mot. to Amend Compl. (“Pl.’s Mot.”).
Defendant submitted its response on June 29, 2015, to which Plaintiff replied on July 13, 2015, Docs.
27, 29. As such, the Motion is ripe for the Court’s review.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 directs the Court to grant leave to amend freely “when
-1-
justice so requires” and further affords the Court discretion to grant such leave. Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). “Unless there exists a substantial reason for denying leave to amend, the district court
should permit the filing of a proposed amendment.” Hinds v. Orix Capital Markets, L.L.C., No. Civ.
A. 3:02-CV-0239-P, 2003 WL 21350210, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2003). “In determining whether
to grant leave to amend, the court may consider several factors, including undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Id. (citing
Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); see also Goldstein v. MCI Worldcom, 340 F.3d 238, 254
(5th Cir. 2003). “When, as here, a party files a motion to amend by the court-ordered deadline, there
is a ‘presumption of timeliness.” Inline Corp. v. Tricon Restaurants Int’l, No. 3:00-CV-0990, 2002 WL
1331885, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 14, 2002) (citing Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137, 139 (5th
Cir. 1993)).
III.
ANALYSIS
In its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks leave to add details
regarding Defendant’s alleged trademark infringement through its use of Plaintiff’s “REPUBLIC
TITLE” mark. Pl.’s Mot. 3. In support of its Motion, Plaintiff explains that its proposed amendments
do not significantly differ from the facts asserted in its Original Complaint. Id. However, Plaintiff also
adds that the amendments reference newly discovered documents and relate to facts and events that
occurred after the filing of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. Id. These new events include “the filing
of various trademark registrations by Defendant, which further infringes and harms Plaintiff.” Id.
Plaintiff further wishes to assert these claims against additional parties that allegedly “caused,
-2-
participated in, or directly conducted activities on behalf of Defendant” during events that occurred
following the filing of the Original Complaint. Id. at 4. Plaintiff insists that no factors weigh against
granting leave: there has been no undue delay; Plaintiff is not acting in bad faith or pursuant to a
dilatory motive; and Defendant will suffer no undue prejudice as a result of the amendment. Id.
Defendant opposes the Motion on multiple grounds. Defendant first argues that the proposed
amendments are futile, as they are “founded on an illusory joinder of improper parties to existing
causes of action which should not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Doc. 27, Def.’s Resp. 1. Further,
Defendant suggests that the amendments would add groundless claims and harass individuals and
entities that should not be parties to this lawsuit. Id. Moreover, Defendant views the proposed
amended complaint as “a non-specific pleading which would require a Motion for More Definite
Statement to clarify what each newly proposed Defendant is being charged with,” which would result
in the need to file an additional amended pleading. Id.
After reviewing the Motion and the arguments and authority presented by the parties, the
Court concludes that there does not exist a “substantial reason for denying leave to amend.” See
Hinds, 2003 WL 21350210, at *3. First, there is no indication of undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory
motive in the filing of the Motion; indeed, Plaintiff requests leave to amend within the time frame
provided by the Court’s January 15, 2015 Scheduling Order. Significantly, Plaintiff seeks to amend
its complaint so as to reference conduct that occurred after the filing of its Original Complaint.
Therefore, it would have been impossible for it to have raised these allegations at the time it
submitted its original pleadings.
Moreover, Defendant is unlikely to suffer undue prejudice by the filing of this amended
complaint; the fact that allegations are added against new parties is not prejudicial, as it is a routine
-3-
occurrence in the litigation of claims and the discovery of new facts to support such claims. Finally,
Defendant’s unsubstantiated argument that the amendment would be futile is unconvincing, as is
its suggestion that this amendment should not be permitted because it would prompt the filing of a
motion for a more definite statement or a motion to dismiss; that Defendant may subsequently decide
to file related motions is not critical to the Court’s decision of whether to grant Plaintiff leave to
amend its complaint, nor can a mere speculation that this will cause further delay affect the analysis
of the Motion as presently submitted.
In light of the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (doc.
26) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is requested to enter Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
(doc. 26-1), currently attached to the Motion, as a separate docket entry.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: August 10, 2015.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
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?