Sales & Consulting Corp. v. J.W.S. Delavau Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 761, 764 (D.N.J. 2000). "[I]n making its determination as to an amendment's futility, the court looks only to the pleadings."Id. at 765; Ortiz v. Murray, No. CV 15-8453 (FLW)(TJB), 2016 WL 7238807, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016). In Hiser v. NZone Guidance, LLC, an FLSA case, the District Court for the Western District of Texas found adding the professional employee exemption defense would be futile because the defendant admitted in its answer that the plaintiff was not salaried and that the plaintiff was paid a day-rate, which the regulations specify cannot be considered a fee basis.
Id. See, e.g. Ortiz v. Murray, No. 15-8453 (FLW), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172725, *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016) ("When deciding if a motion to amend is futile, the Court looks at the four corners of the complaint and accepts as true all facts plead by Plaintiff"). The Court notes that the non-moving party bears the burden of establishing that Petitioner's proposed amendment is futile, and that, "given the liberal standard applied to the amendment of pleadings," that burden is a "heavy" one.