Isbell, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 55 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and denying without prejudice 39 Motion for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Nancy F Atlas) Parties notified.(TDR, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DANIEL E. ISBELL, JR.,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
April 04, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-1635
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) [Doc. # 55], to which Wells Fargo Filed
an Opposition [Doc. # 57], and an Plaintiff filed an untimely1 reply [Doc. # 58].
Having reviewed the full record and the applicable legal authorities, the Court grants
the Motion to Amend. The Court also denies without prejudice the pending Motion
for Summary Judgment addressing the claims in the First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Daniel E. Isbell, Jr. filed this lawsuit in Texas state court on
February 10, 2015. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) filed a timely
Notice of Removal [Doc. # 1] on June 10, 2015. Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint [Doc. # 28] on September 20, 2016. On December 6, 2016, the case was
Defendant filed its Opposition on March 10, 2017. Pursuant to this Court’s
Procedures, any reply was due 7 days later, on March 17, 2017. See Court
Procedures, ¶ 7.A.4. Plaintiff did not file the reply until March 31, 2017.
reassigned to this Court without a deadline for amendments to pleadings. On
January 23, 2017, Wells Fargo filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 39].
Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to clarify his claims.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend
pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a);
United States ex rel. Marcy v. Rowan Companies, Inc., 520 F.3d 384, 392 (5th Cir.
2008). The Fifth Circuit has concluded that Rule 15(a) “evinces a bias in favor of
granting leave to amend.” Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1175 (5th Cir.
2006) (citation omitted). The decision to grant or deny leave to amend “is entrusted
to the sound discretion of the district court.” Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware
GmbH & Co., 688 F.3d 214, 232 (5th Cir. 2012). Nonetheless, a court must have a
“‘substantial reason’ to deny a party’s request for leave to amend.” Marucci Sports,
L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005)).
It is this Court’s practice to allow amendments when leave to amend is
requested prior to the applicable deadline. In this case, Plaintiff requested leave to file
the Second Amended Complaint prior to any deadline for amendments to pleadings.
As a result, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
[Doc. # 55] is GRANTED. No further amendments will be permitted. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 39],
which addresses the allegations and claims in the First Amended Complaint, is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to again seek summary judgment
addressing the current allegations and claims.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 4th day of April, 2017.
NAN Y F. ATLAS
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?