Community Voice Line, LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp., 295 F.R.D. 313

Background

CVL sued GLCC (May 2012) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging GLCC failed to pay marketing commissions for assigned telephone "Program Numbers." CVL later amended damages upward.
GLCC filed counterclaims and a third-party complaint alleging an indemnity obligation by CVL, Blitz Telecom and Russell; those third-party defendants were later dismissed and GLCC’s counterclaims were resolved in CVL’s favor on summary judgment.
Significant discovery disputes: the court found GLCC violated discovery orders, imposed sanctions, and ordered production; key documents were produced by GLCC in July 2013, which CVL says revealed facts supporting new claims against additional parties.
CVL moved (Oct. 2013, within the pleading deadline) for leave to file a second amended complaint adding five named defendants (Comity, Audio Now, Josh Nelson, Radio France, Signal FM Haiti) and numerous counts (fraud, interference, conversion, conspiracy, etc.).
GLCC opposed, arguing undue delay, undue prejudice, bad faith/harassment, futility of claims, and that many claims duplicate a Maryland action where CVL sued Audio Now.
The magistrate judge applied Rule 15(a) (amendment freely given) and denied GLCC’s objections, granting leave to file the second amended complaint, vacating the scheduling order, and continuing the trial date.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Undue delay	CVL: learned facts just in July 2013 from GLCC production and timely moved within deadline	GLCC: CVL could and should have amended earlier; threats to amend since March 2013 show delay	No undue delay — evidence supporting new claims arose from GLCC's late production; motion filed within amendment deadline
Undue prejudice	CVL: GLCC caused delay by withholding documents; additional costs are not unusual	GLCC: amendment will force reopening discovery, raise fees, delay trial unfairly	No undue prejudice — GLCC’s discovery delays reduce force of prejudice claim; consequences (fees, schedule changes) expected but insufficient
Harassment/bad faith	CVL: has factual basis for new parties and did not delay unreasonably in adding them	GLCC: amendment is harassing, aimed at embarrassment; adding unrelated radio customers is improper	No evidence of bad faith or harassment; claim denied
Futility of proposed claims (fraud, interference, conversion, jurisdiction/venue)	CVL: pleadings include factual allegations (emails, indemnity agreement, porting) sufficient to state plausible claims; novel claims (e.g., conversion of phone numbers) should proceed	GLCC: many claims fail Rule 9(b) or are legally untenable (phone numbers not convertible); venue/jurisdiction defects for Maryland parties	Amendment not futile as a whole; some fraud allegations may be weak but not certain to fail; novel theories and jurisdictional/venue defenses are premature
Parallel Maryland litigation / abstention	CVL: claims there overlap but facts concerning GLCC/Nelson conspiracy discovered later; abstention should be raised by Audio Now if at all	GLCC: identical claims are pending in Maryland; this court should abstain	Premature to abstain now; court will consider abstention only if/when added defendants raise it

Key Cases Cited

Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488 (8th Cir. 2008) (timely amendment governed by Rule 15 when scheduling deadline is met)
Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452 (8th Cir. 1998) (factors permitting denial of leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, futility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
In re Senior Cottages of Am., LLC, 482 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2007) (futility standard for leave to amend tied to Rule 12 dismissal)
Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, 532 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008) (prejudice from schedule modification considered when movant lacks diligence)
United States ex rel. Costner v. United States, 317 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) requires heightened notice for fraud allegations)
Commercial Prop. Inv., Inc. v. Quality Inns Int'l, 61 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 1995) (contents of fraud pleading under Rule 9(b))
In re StarNet, Inc., 355 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2004) (discussion that phone numbers generally lack traditional property interests)
Nesler v. Fisher and Co., Inc., 452 N.W.2d 191 (Iowa 1990) (elements of intentional interference under Iowa law)