From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mack v. Center Operating Company

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Oct 4, 2002
Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-2125-R (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2002)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-2125-R

October 4, 2002


ORDER


Pursuant to the District Court's Scheduling Order, entered January 4, 2002, "Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint," filed September 11, 2002, has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for determination. "Leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp., 240 F.3d 449, 452 (5th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) limits a court's discretion to deny leave to amend). However, a court may deny leave to amend 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, [and] futility of amendment." State of Louisiana v. Litton Mortgage Co., 50 F.3d 1298, 1303 (5th Cir. 1995).

In the instant case, Defendant contends that: (1) amendment would be futile, (2) amendment would cause undue prejudice to Defendant, (3) Plaintiff moves for amendment in bad faith, and (4) Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiency in a previous amendment. (D.'s Resp. at 3, 10, 13.) With respect to futility, the Court cannot say that "Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief" on her Fair Labor Standards Act claim. J.R. Stripling v. Jordan Production Co., L.L.C., 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th Cir. 2000). With respect to undue prejudice, any prejudice that might have existed is mitigated by the District Court's Order of August 28, 2002. Under the terms of that Order, the District Court stayed the deadlines in the Scheduling Order and will issue an amended scheduling order after the resolution of Defendant's "Amended Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel." Finally, with respect to bad faith and failure to cure the deficiency, the need to file a second amended complaint arose only after the August 5, 2002, deposition of Plaintiff. As such, "Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint" is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mack v. Center Operating Company

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Oct 4, 2002
Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-2125-R (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2002)
Case details for

Mack v. Center Operating Company

Case Details

Full title:CINDEE MACK, Plaintiff v. CENTER OPERATING COMPANY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Oct 4, 2002

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-2125-R (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2002)