Opinion
Docket No. 00-CV-0319E(F).
December 15, 2000
Terrence P. Naples, Esq., Eggertsville, NY., Bruce P. Golden, Esq., Chicago, IL., Attorney[s] For The Plaintiff[s].
Stuart Mark Riback, Esq., c/o Siller Wilk, New York, NY., Bennett G. Feldman, Esq., Coral Gables, FL., Attorney[s] For The Defendant[s].
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiffs filed this action April 18, 2000 claiming, inter alia, that defendants conspired to deprive plaintiffs of the right to use yellowpage.net as an Internet domain name. Presently before this Court is plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their Complaint. Such motion will be granted.
The proposed amendments seek to add claims for breach of fiduciary duties and fraud, and also seek to add Edward Tinari (the father of original defendant Michael Tinari), David Hill and EcomPark, Inc. as named defendants. Insofar as the named new parties, plaintiffs claim that, inter alia, Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCvP") allows for such amendment. Defendants Tinari and Gallo oppose the instant motion.
FRCvP 16(a) permits a party to amend its pleadings by leave of the court and leave of the court shall be freely given when justice so requires. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The decision whether to grant such a motion rests within the discretion of the district court although an "outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely an abuse of that discretion." Ibid. Among the reasons that justify denying leave to amend are "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment." Ibid. "Mere delay, however, absent a showing of bad faith or undue prejudice, does not provide a basis for a district court to deny the right to amend" State Teachers Retirement Bd. v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir. 1981).
Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances in this matter, there does not appear to be any ground for denying plaintiffs' application to amend the pleadings. Firstly, the passage of seven months in the instant matter is immaterial inasmuch as a scheduling order has yet to be issued. Secondly, absent the somewhat nebulous and conclusory charges contained in defendants' papers regarding plaintiffs' bad faith and dilatory motives, there is simply nothing in the record which suggest the same. Thirdly, insofar as defendants allege that they will be prejudiced by, inter alia, "additional rounds of endless discovery," such is unavailing because, as stated previously, this Court has yet to issue scheduling order and, absent specificity, defendants' claim of prejudice remains wholly conclusory. Tinari Gallo Response ¶ 4. Finally, this Court cannot discern any legal obstacle from the parties' submissions indicating that the addition of such claims would be futile.
While FRCvP 15(a) generally governs amendments to pleadings, FRCvP 20(a) specifically governs plaintiffs' motion to add the new defendants. Cline v. 1-888-Plumbing Group, Inc., No. 99CIV1401RJW 2000 WL 342689, at *2 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 30, 2000). FRCvP 20(a) provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to an defendants will arise in the action." Pursuant to this language, two prerequisites to permissive joinder must be found to exist — viz., a right to relief must be asserted against each defendant relating to "or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and there must exist some "question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Id., at *1. Upon the satisfaction of these two prerequisites, however, plaintiffs are still not entitled to add new defendants. Id., at *2. Such decision remains within the broad discretion of this Court and, in deciding whether to permit such, this Court "must consider that the purpose of joinder under Rule 20(a) is to promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits." Ibid.
Each prerequisite is satisfied. Firstly, plaintiff alleges that each of the proposed defendants participated in the scheme to deprive plaintiffs of the right to use yellowpage.net as an Internet domain name, as is alleged in the original Complaint. Such allegation is sufficient to satisfy the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" requirement of FRCvP 20(a). Moreover and because plaintiffs' alleged injuries are purported to be traceable to the actions of each defendant, the "question of law or fact common to all defendants" requirement of FRCvP 20(a) is also met. Finally, this Court believes that joining the proposed defendants will promote trial convenience and judicial economy because, in their absence, plaintiffs would be required to commence a separate action against these parties based on the same facts and circumstances which precipitated the original Complaint.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their Complaint is granted and that plaintiffs' shall, not later than January 3, 2001, serve and file a Amended Complaint — which shall supercede the original Complaint by including both the provisions of the original Complaint and the allowed amendments.