Opinion
Civil Action 7:21-cv-00247
09-14-2022
FILIBERTO J. GARZA MORENO, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY, ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC, and AIRPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Micaela Alvarez United States District Judge
The Court now considers “Defendants Allegiant Travel Company and Allegiant Air LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Allegiant Travel Company's and Allegiant Air LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” and “Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Second Amended Original Complaint.” After considering the motions, record, and relevant authorities, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint.
Dkt. No. 35.
Dkt. No. 40.
Dkt. No. 39.
Dkt. No. 35.
Dkt. No. 39.
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's gross negligence/exemplary damages claim with prejudice. Plaintiff's response asserts that “Plaintiff no longer desires to prosecute his claim and cause of action for gross negligence and exemplary damages against Defendants.” Thus, instead of granting Defendants' motion for partial dismissal, Plaintiff would ask the Court to grant his unopposed motion requesting leave to file his amended complaint.
Dkt. No. 35.
Dkt. No. 40.
Id. at 1.
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that the Court should freely give leave to amend “when justice so requires.” In determining whether to allow leave to amend a pleading, courts examine whether there was 1) undue delay; 2) bad faith or dilatory motive; 3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; 4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; and 5) futility of the amendment. In the absence of any of these factors, the Court should freely grant the requested leave. The decision whether to grant leave to amend lies within the Court's sound discretion.
FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); see Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (noting that the language of Rule 15(a) “evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend”).
Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003)).
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Smith, 393 F.3d at 595 (quoting Quintanilla v. Tex. Television, Inc., 139 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1998)).
The Court finds none of the warning factors present here. Plaintiff does not seek amendment in bad faith or with dilatory motive. Amendment here will not result in any significant delay. Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiff's amendment would not prejudice Defendants, particularly considering Defendants' lack of opposition. Plaintiff's amendment would not be futile, as Plaintiff would have the opportunity to file a complaint in conformity with Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as well as Plaintiff's response to that motion.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plainitff's unopposed motion for leave to file Plaintiff's second amended original complain. Plaintiff's second amended original complaint is considered timely filed as of today's date and the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to enter that complaint as a separate docket entry on the Court's docket. Additionally, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
Dkt. No. 39.
Dkt. N0. 39-1.
Dkt. No. 35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.