Hughes et al v. Consolidation Coal Company

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 10 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint. Clerk is directed to file the amended complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 8/17/11. (cc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MICHAEL HUGHES, AMY HUGHES, KEVIN KIMPLE and CARRIE KIMPLE, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 5:11CV43 (STAMP) CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, a corporation and RESERVE COAL PROPERTIES COMPANY, a corporation, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT I. Background The plaintiffs, Michael Hughes, Amy Hughes, Kevin Kimple, and Carrie Kimple, filed a complaint alleging damage to the plaintiffs’ residences because properties. of subsidence within and underlying their The plaintiffs have now filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add an additional defendant. current defendant in the case did not file a response. The For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend complaint their complaint is granted. II. Federal Rule of Applicable Law Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A) states, in pertinent part, that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . before being served with a responsive pleading.” If a party seeks to amend its pleadings in all other cases, it may only do so “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. justice so requires.” Rule 15(a) The court should freely give leave when Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). grants the district court broad discretion concerning motions to amend pleadings, and leave should be granted absent some reason “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.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Ward Elec. Serv. v. First Commercial Bank, 819 F.2d 496, 497 (4th Cir. 1987); Gladhill v. Gen. Motors Corp., 743 F.2d 1049, 1052 (4th Cir. 1984). III. Discussion The plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to add Reserve Coal Properties Company as a defendant in this matter. The plaintiffs state that Reserve Coal Properties Company, a company affiliated with the defendant, is likely the current owner of the coal within and under the plaintiffs’ property. does not constitute defendants. an unfair surprise or This amendment prejudice to the Further, the amended complaint is not futile as it relates back to the original complaint. Consolidation Coal Company has not responded to the plaintiffs’ motion. After a review of the record, this Court concludes that the plaintiffs have not exhibited any undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive. Moreover, the prejudice to the defendants is not 2 significant as to prevent this Court from allowing the amendment, and this Court cannot conclude that the plaintiffs’ amendment would be futile, as it relates back to the original complaint. Accordingly, this Court grants the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add Reserve Coal Properties Company as a defendant in this civil action. IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend complaint is hereby GRANTED. to file the amended complaint, which The Clerk is DIRECTED was attached to the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Docket No. 10. The plaintiffs are DIRECTED to serve the amended complaint on the defendants. The parties served with the amended complaint shall make any defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and any counterclaims or cross-claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this memorandum opinion and order to counsel of record herein. DATED: August 17, 2011 /s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?