Opinion
Case No. 6:11-cv-1266-Orl-31GJK.
October 18, 2011
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 33) filed by the Plaintiff, David Acosta ("Acosta"). The Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that he is free to amend the Complaint under Rule 15(a) because no defendant has filed a responsive pleading. (Doc. 33 at 1). Although no responsive pleading has been filed, the defendants have filed two motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), and they did so more than 21 days before Acosta filed his motion for leave to amend. A party's right to freely amend its pleading terminates 21 days after the filing of a Rule 12(b) motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B).
Although Acosta may not amend as a matter of course, his motion comes well before the December 11, 2011 deadline for amendment of pleadings set in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 35). As such, this Court's discretion to deny leave to amend is sharply circumscribed. See, e.g., Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the motion will be granted.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 33) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall file a copy of the amended complaint on or before Friday, October 21, 2011. And it is further
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Paul Hinckley, Erik Whynot and Taylor Carls, P.A. (Doc. 7) and by Defendants James A. Gustino, P.A. and James A. Gustino (Doc. 25) are DENIED AS MOOT. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.