David Ridley Oil, LLC v. Silver Creek Oil and Gas, LLC, 6:16-cv-00144

Plaintiff (David Ridley Oil, LLC) sued Defendant (Silver Creek Oil & Gas, LLC) alleging negligent fracking beginning May 4, 2014, causing invasion of Plaintiff’s wells and removal of its water/fracking fluid.
Defendant answered but filed no counterclaims; deadlines to amend pleadings passed September 19, 2016; discovery was ongoing and trial set for November 1, 2017.
About six weeks before dispositive motions were due, Defendant moved to add a counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 seeking reimbursement for water-hauling costs it alleges it paid on Plaintiff’s behalf after the frack.
Defendant contended later-discovered evidence (an affidavit by David Ridley) showed it was not required to haul Plaintiff’s water, justifying the reimbursement claim.
Plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendment was futile and prejudicial; the court found the affidavit and related documents had been available to Defendant much earlier (including production by August 31, 2016), undermining Defendant’s diligence.
The court denied leave to amend on futility grounds (proposed counterclaim failed to plead a legal theory or factual detail sufficient for plausibility) and for undue delay/prejudice to Plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend to add a counterclaim should be granted under Rule 15	Deny: amendment is futile and prejudicial	Grant: counterclaim arises from same transaction and was sought promptly after discovering evidence	Denied — amendment would be futile and was unduly delayed
Whether the proposed counterclaim states a plausible claim	Proposed pleading lacks legal theory and factual detail; would be dismissed	Ridley Affidavit and facts support a claim for reimbursement	Denied — pleading fails Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards
Whether Defendant acted with sufficient diligence in seeking amendment	Documents showing basis were produced earlier; delay unexplained	Sought amendment as soon as practicable after reviewing voluminous records	Denied — Defendant knew or should have known earlier; delay prejudicial
Whether permitting amendment at this stage would prejudice Plaintiff	Allowing amendment would require extending deadlines and delay trial	Prejudice is overstated; amendment is necessary for justice	Denied — undue prejudice from late-stage amendment and trial disruption

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual content permitting plausible inference of liability)
Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (Rule 15 favors liberal amendment; factors for denial)
Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357 (grounds to deny leave: undue delay, prejudice, bad faith, futility)
Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High School, 132 F.3d 542 (amendment futile if proposed pleading would be dismissed)