Scannell Properties #516, LLC and Scannell Properties #673, LLC v. City of Edwardsville, Kansas

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas partially grants and partially denies Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court permits amendments adding factual allegations concerning a new municipal ordinance but denies as futile Plaintiffs’ request to revive a previously dismissed Surface Transportation Assistance Act claim. The court orders Plaintiffs to submit a revised proposed pleading by May 15, 2026, omitting previously dismissed individual defendants.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15(a)(2) to incorporate the additional factual allegations, including allegations concerning Ordinance 1095, because the City consented to those revisions.
2. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile insofar as plaintiffs sought to reassert their STAA-based declaratory and injunctive claim because plaintiffs identified no intervening, binding authority undermining the court's prior conclusion that the STAA does not permit private enforcement.
3. The second amended complaint must omit the previously dismissed individual defendants from its caption and body and must reflect that the City is the sole remaining defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs should be granted leave under Rule 15(a)(2) to add unopposed factual allegations concerning Ordinance 1095 and the current regulatory framework.
2. Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to reassert a previously dismissed STAA-based declaratory and injunctive claim where the asserted intervening authorities did not provide binding authority undermining the prior dismissal.
3. Whether the previously dismissed individual defendants could remain named in the proposed second amended complaint.

Disposition

other