Tucker Energy Services USA, Inc. v. RICOH Americas Corporation

Filing 16

ORDER entered GRANTING 14 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint, DENYING 6 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TUCKER ENERGY SERVICES,
USA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-0417

ORDER
This is a commercial dispute. On April 10, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docket Entry No. 6). To allow the parties an
opportunity to explore settlement, this court extended the plaintiff’s response deadline to May 15,
to May 29, and then to June 1. (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 11, 13).
On June 1, the plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint. (Docket Entry No.
14). According to the plaintiff, it did not seek to amend under Rule 15(a)(1), but rather sought
extensions to see if the case could be settled. The plaintiff also responded to the motion to dismiss
based on the proposed amended complaint.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a district court “should freely give leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]he language of this 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although leave to amend should not be
automatically granted, “[a] district court must possess a substantial reason to deny a request for leave
to amend[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 15(a), “[d]enial of leave to amend

may be warranted for undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of a proposed
amendment.” United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 625 F.3d 262, 270 (5th Cir.
2010).
In this case, no substantial reason for denying the plaintiff’s request exists. The plaintiff has
not unduly delayed seeking leave to amend. Rather, the plaintiff’s brief delay—less than one month
after it could have amended as of right under Rule 15(a)(1)—is due to the parties’ agreed extensions
to explore settlement. For the same reason, the plaintiff’s motion is not in bad faith. Amendment
will not prejudice the defendant. As already stated, less than one month has passed since the
plaintiff’s deadline for amending as of right. No hearings, including the initial conference, have
been held, and formal discovery has not begun.
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, (Docket Entry No. 14), is
granted. The defendant’s motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 6), is denied as moot, and without
prejudice to reassertion as to the amended complaint.
SIGNED on June 25, 2012, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

2