Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted John Hilaire’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. The court found no undue prejudice, bad faith, or dilatory conduct, and directed the Clerk to docket the proposed Third Amended Complaint as the operative pleading.
Holdings
- Leave to amend should be granted because the proposed amendment was not shown to result from bad faith or dilatory conduct, and defendants would not suffer undue prejudice.
- The pending motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is denied as moot because the Third Amended Complaint supersedes the Second Amended Complaint.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to file a Third Amended Complaint.
- Whether defendants' pending motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint remained operative after leave to amend was granted.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (10)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)(followed)
- Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Park B. Smith, Inc. v. CHF Indus. Inc., 811 F. Supp. 2d 766, 779 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)(followed)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 339-40 (2d Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2008)(followed)
- State Teachers Ret. Bd. v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir. 1981)(followed)
- Saxholm AS v. Dynal, Inc., 938 F. Supp. 120, 123 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)(followed)
- Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344, 350 (2d Cir. 1993)(followed)
- Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Servco Oil, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-829 (JCH), 2010 WL 2710479, at *2-*3 (D. Conn. July 7, 2010)(followed)
- In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2000)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…