From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graham Eng'g Corp. v. Lawton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 13, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-2524 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-2524

10-13-2017

GRAHAM ENGINEERING CORP., Plaintiff v. JEFF LAWTON, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 34) filed by plaintiff Graham Engineering Corporation ("Graham") for leave to file a second amended complaint against defendant Jeff Lawton ("Lawton") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), and Graham's brief (Doc. 35) in support thereof, wherein Graham asserts that amendment is necessary to plead additional facts directed to Lawton's "actual efforts to compete" and "further demonstrate that the claims asserted . . . are anything but speculative," (see id. at 2), and further upon consideration of the opposition (Doc. 43), wherein Lawton suggests that the interests of justice warrant denial of Graham's motion, (see id. at 1-2, 10-19), and the court observing that Rule 15(a)(2) directs the court to "freely give leave when justice so requires," FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2), and that the decision whether to grant leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, see Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1413 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 647 (3d Cir. 1989)), and that courts will generally grant leave to amend unless an opposing party demonstrates undue delay, bad faith on the part of the movant, or prejudice to the non-moving party, see Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Combined Ins. Co. of Am. v. Bastian, No. 09-CV-111, 2009 WL 5111794, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2009), and, following a review of the proposed amended pleading (Doc. 34-2), and in light of the minor alterations therein, and upon examining Lawton's assertions with respect to bad faith, futility, and prejudice, (Doc. 43 at 10-19), and the court concluding that the interest of justice favors granting leave to amend under the circumstances, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Graham's motion (Doc. 34) for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.

2. Graham shall file its second amended complaint on or before October 17 , 2017 .

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Graham Eng'g Corp. v. Lawton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 13, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-2524 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2017)
Case details for

Graham Eng'g Corp. v. Lawton

Case Details

Full title:GRAHAM ENGINEERING CORP., Plaintiff v. JEFF LAWTON, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Oct 13, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-2524 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2017)