Long v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 7 MOTION to Amend Complaint; directing that Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint, [7-1], is substituted as the operative complaint in this case. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/14/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

ANTHONY D. LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-01202

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. (ECF 7.) For the
reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS this motion.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court of Nicholas County, West Virginia, on
December 10, 2014. (ECF 1-1.) On January 28, 2015, Defendant removed the case to this Court,
(ECF 1), and attached its Answer to the Notice of Removal, (ECF 3).
On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend Complaint, which seeks
amendment “to assert claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and add additional
individual claims under the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act.” (ECF 7 at 1.) Plaintiff
attached the proposed amended complaint to the Motion to Amend Complaint. (See ECF 7-1.) On
April 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a proposed order, which notes that “[D]efendant has determined not
to oppose [the Motion to Amend Complaint] and agrees the amendment should be allowed.” (ECF
10.)

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 permits amendment of a complaint more than
twenty-one days following the service of a responsive pleading “only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave
when justice so requires.” Id. Under Rule 15(a), “leave to amend should be denied only when the
amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the
moving party, or amendment would be futile.” Matrix Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. BearingPoint,
Inc., 576 F.3d 172, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006)).
This liberal amendment approach “gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on
their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amendment of the operative complaint would not be
prejudicial to the opposing party, there is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has acted in bad
faith, and the Court is not aware of any evidence indicating the amendment would be futile.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint. (ECF 7.) The Court
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint, (ECF 7-1), is substituted as the operative
complaint in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

May 14, 2015