Summary
The court grants Truist Bank’s timely motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend its answer to assert an additional affirmative defense and counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court holds that the compulsory nature of the counterclaim does not bar amendment and finds no undue delay, prejudice, bad faith, futility, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a compulsory counterclaim must have been included in the original answer or may be asserted for the first time in an amended answer under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13 and 15.
- Whether Truist's timely motion for leave to amend satisfied the liberal standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), including the absence of undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, repeated failure to cure, or futility.
Holdings
- A compulsory counterclaim may be raised in a timely amended answer and need not have been included in the original answer; Rule 15 governs the amendment even when the proposed counterclaim is compulsory under Rule 13.
- Leave to amend should be granted where the motion is timely, the amendment is Truist's first, discovery is limited, trial is more than a year away, and the opposing party identifies no undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure, undue prejudice, or futility.
Key quotations
“The determination that a counterclaim is compulsory does not prevent it from being raised in an amended answer.” (3)
“Applying the lenient Rule 15(a) standard, the court concludes in its discretion that Truist’s motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim should be granted.” (7)
Factual background
Cantu alleged that Truist and TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to reasonably investigate an allegedly fraudulent account opened in her name. Truist's original answer denied that the account was fraudulent and denied that Truist failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Before the scheduling-order deadline, Truist moved to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense, counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and related relief. At the time of the motion, discovery was limited, no depositions had been taken, no experts had been designated, and trial was more than a year away.
Procedural history
Cantu sued Truist Bank and TransUnion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Truist filed an answer with affirmative defenses and later moved by the scheduling-order deadline for leave to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense, counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and requests for damages, declaratory relief, and attorney's fees. The district court granted leave to amend and deemed the prematurely docketed amended answer properly filed.