ONG Investment v. Furlong et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 16 Motion to File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 12/3/15 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

ONG INVESTMENTS, LC,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

vs.

JOSEPH B. FURLONG dba MDSOX;
RADWORKERS, INC.; JOHN DOES 1–5
DBA MDSOX,

Case No. 2:15-cv-00368-TC

Defendants.

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff ONG Investments, LC, (ONG) filed a motion seeking
leave to amend its complaint and add Cirk Tek, LLC, as a defendant. (ECF No. 16.) Until then,
ONG had not yet moved to amend its original complaint, which was served on Defendants
Joseph P. Furlong and Radworkers, Inc. on September 10, 2015. ONG’s motion was filed in the
middle of briefing a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7), which was filed on September 30, 2015.
Even though twenty-one days have passed since the serving of the complaint and the
filing of the Motion to Dismiss, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instruct the court “to freely
give leave [to amend the pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). District
courts may withhold leave “for reasons such as ‘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 by virtue of allowance of the amendment,’ or futility of

the amendment.” United States ex rel. Ritchie v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 558 F.3d 1161, 1166
(10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
In their memorandum opposing an amendment, Defendants Furlong and Radworkers
assert that Cirk Tek has filed a lawsuit against ONG in the Federal District Court for the Western
District of Texas and that ONG’s investigation was inadequate because Cirk Tek’s identity was
publically available when the original complaint was filed. (ECF No. 17.) Assuming the
Defendants assertions are true, they still give no caselaw or authority that would justify
withholding leave. Reasons, such as those discussed in Lockheed Martin, do not exist here, and
the Defendants do not suggest that they would be unduly prejudiced if leave were granted.
For these reasons, the court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s motion and gives it leave to file an
amended complaint.
DATED this 3rd day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

TENA CAMPBELL
U.S. District Court Judge

2