From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexander v. Diamond Healthcare Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION
Sep 12, 2012
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-32 (W.D. Ky. Sep. 12, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:12-CV-32

09-12-2012

SHARON ALEXANDER PLAINTIFF v. DIAMOND HEALTHCARE CORPORATION and TRIGG COUNTY HOSPITAL, INC., d/b/a TRIGG BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DEFENDANTS


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Amend her complaint (DN 11). This motion comes after Defendant Trigg County Hospital, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (DN 4). Plaintiff has filed her response (DN 10). Defendant has filed its reply (DN 12) and Plaintiff has filed a surreply (DN 14). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (DN 11) is GRANTED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." The rule directs that the "court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This rule gives effect to the principle that, as far as possible, cases should be determined on their merits and not on technicalities. Cooper v. Am. Employers' Ins. Co., 296 F.2d 303, 306 (6th Cir. 1961). Denial of leave to amend may be appropriate "where there is 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, futility of the amendment, etc." Miller v. Champion Enters., Inc., 346 F.3d 660, 690 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations and quotation omitted). A motion to amend is deemed futile if the proposed amendment "could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss." Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Thiokol Corp. v. Department of Treasury, State of Michigan, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 382-83 (6th Cir. 1993)).

Because Defendant was able to address Plaintiff's Complaint as amended in its reply (DN 12), the Court believes Defendant will not be prejudiced in accepting this new pleading. For these reasons, the Court orders that Plaintiff's Motion to File her Amended Complaint (DN 11) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge

United States District Court


Summaries of

Alexander v. Diamond Healthcare Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION
Sep 12, 2012
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-32 (W.D. Ky. Sep. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Alexander v. Diamond Healthcare Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SHARON ALEXANDER PLAINTIFF v. DIAMOND HEALTHCARE CORPORATION and TRIGG…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION

Date published: Sep 12, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 5:12-CV-32 (W.D. Ky. Sep. 12, 2012)