Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantliabilitypleamotionbad faithmotion to dismiss
tortplaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialpleamotionwillmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Doe v. City of Memphis, 928 F.3d 481, 104 Fed.R.Serv.3d 124
View Case »
In re Solomon R., 123 A.D.3d 934, 999 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08849
View Case »
Phillips v. Osborne, 403 F.2d 826, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2782, 59 Lab.Cas. P 13,051
View Case »
Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532
View Case »
Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5507, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6551, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7523, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Roger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 11588368

Facts

The case arose from the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 investigation of Energy Laboratories, Inc. Plaintiffs filed various causes of action against the Defendants, leading to a Motion to Dismiss from the Defendant, which claimed the Second Amended Complaint was untimely and insufficiently detailed. In response, the Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to include additional supporting documents, asserting that their claims were timely and that the Defendant was not immune from liability.

On November 6, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, that is now ripe, seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint as untimely, barred by the discretionary function exception to liability, and that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts for each alleged tort claim.

Issue

Whether the Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their Second Amended Complaint to include additional documents in support of their claims despite the Defendant's opposition citing futility.

Defendant's opposition focuses on the alleged futility of the Motion to Amend its Second Amended Complaint.

Rule

The Tenth Circuit has adopted a liberal standard for granting leave to amend pleadings, emphasizing that motions to amend should be granted unless there is undue delay, bad faith, or futility.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has adopted a liberal standard when determining whether or not leave to amend a pleading should be given.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the Plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint in light of the Defendant's arguments regarding futility. It noted that the Plaintiffs were not seeking to file a new complaint but rather to provide additional documentation to support their existing claims. The Court found that allowing the additional documents would not prejudice the Defendant and would enable the Court to consider all relevant information when ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss.

However, it appears Plaintiffs do not desire to file a Third Amended Complaint, but rather to provide the Court with additional documentation it may utilize in addressing the pending Motion to Dismiss.

Conclusion

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, allowing them to file the additional documents while not permitting any actual amendments to the Second Amended Complaint.

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion and will allow Plaintiff to file the proposed additional documents to be considered by the District Court in ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in this case as the Court granted their motion to amend, allowing them to submit additional supporting documents.

The Court finds the ultimate issue surrounding the viability of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is best addressed and currently pending before the trial Court.

You must be