Jackson et al v. Bexar County Texas, et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING 39 Motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (rg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
RANDOLPH JACKSON AND JANET
MEYERS, individually and as heirs of
the estate of Matthew Charles Jackson,
and ERICA FITTS, individually and as
next friend of J.C.J., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SUSAN PAMERLEAU, individually,
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, and
ANTHONY THOMAS, individually,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 5:15–CV–524–DAE

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
On January 8, 2016, Randolph Jackson and Janet Meyers, individually
and as heirs of the estate of Matthew Charles Jackson, and Erica Fitts, individual
and as next friend of J.C.J., a minor (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion
seeking Leave to File their Second Amended Complaint against all Defendants.
(Dkt. # 39.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows a party to “amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The policy of the Federal Rules is to permit liberal
amendment.” Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir. 2006)

1

(quoting Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 597–98 (5th Cir. 1981)).
However, “[a] decision to grant leave is within the discretion of the trial court,”
where the trial court can articulate “a substantial reason” for denying leave. Matter
of Southmark Corp., 88 F.3d 311, 314–15 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, when
determining whether to grant leave to amend pleadings, a court should deny leave
if there exist “such factors as undue delay . . . undue prejudice to the opposing
party, and futility of amendment.” Id.
Pursuant to this Court’s Scheduling Order, amended pleadings in this
case were due on December 21, 2015. (Dkt. # 23.) On August 8, 2015,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 9.) On December 28, 2015, this
Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File their First Amended Complaint
(Dkt. # 32) after finding that Plaintiffs did not seek to file the Amended Complaint
for reasons of bad faith or to cause undue delay.” (Dkt. # 33.) Plaintiffs filed their
First Amended Complaint December 28, 2015. (Dkt. # 34.) On December 29,
2015, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss, anticipating that the First
Amended Complaint would moot their original Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 35.)
This case is scheduled for hearing on January 28, 2016 with regards to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 35), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. # 22).
Granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint will moot the Amended
Motion to Dismiss and require Defendants to file the motion for a third time.

2

Noting that the hearing on the issue is rapidly approaching, granting leave to
amend the complaint will cause undue prejudice to Defendants.
Further, the Court has reviewed the proposed Second Amended
Complaint, and finds only one material change from the First Amended Complaint,
the addition of the following sentence:
At all times relevant DEFENDANT THOMAS assaulted and
committed battery against PLANTIFF JACKSON while he was an
on duty officer for the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office.
(Dkt. # 39, Ex. A.) 1 Plaintiffs argue that this addition is necessary, because
Defendant Bexar County disclosed information on December 29, 2015 regarding
an insurance policy, and this information would prejudice Plaintiffs if they are not
allowed to amend their complaint. (Id. at 2.) The Court does not follow this logic,
which appears to be based upon a misunderstanding of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.2 Should Plaintiffs or Defendants later wish to include this insurance
policy as evidence in support of a motion, provided that such admission is not
1

The remaining differences between the First Amended Complaint and the Second
Proposed Amended Complaint are immaterial; the Second Proposed Amended
Complaint states that Defendants Bexar County Texas, Susan Pamerleau, and
Anthony Thomas have been served, and paragraph 11 is formatted in a different
manner. (Dkt. # 39 ¶¶ 4–6, 11.)
2

Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to amend their complaint, because
“[p]ursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(c) a party must make initial disclosures at or within 14
days after the parties Rule 26(f) Conference.” (Dkt. # 39 at 2.) Federal Rule 26(c)
contains no such requirement. Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
do not permit a Plaintiff’s complaint to be continuously amended in response to
information obtained during discovery. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
3

prohibited by the Federal Rules of Evidence, the opposing party will be able to
respond by filing a memorandum in opposition at that time. Further, the conduct
that forms the basis for Plaintiffs’ complaint was known to Plaintiffs from the
inception of the lawsuit.
Because allowing Plaintiffs to file their Proposed Second Amended
Complaint could cause undue prejudice to Defendants, Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File their Second Amended Complaint is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, January 14, 2016

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

4