Doe v. Baker County, 3:23-cv-00609

Jane Doe, the plaintiff, filed suit in the Middle District of Florida against Baker County and additional defendants.
Multiple defendants filed motions to dismiss Doe's complaint.
In her responses opposing dismissal, Doe alternatively requested leave to amend her complaint if the court deemed her allegations insufficient.
The court found that Doe's requests for leave to amend were improperly made because they were embedded in her opposition briefs rather than presented as a separate motion, as required by federal and local rules.
Doe's requests also failed to comply with the requirement to show the substance of the proposed amendment or attach it, as well as to confer with opposing counsel.
As a result, the court denied Doe’s requests for affirmative relief without prejudice, leaving her free to file a proper motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether leave to amend can be sought in responses to motions to dismiss	Doe argues she should be permitted a chance to amend if the court finds her allegations insufficient	Defendants argue Doe failed to properly move for amendment under applicable rules	Leave to amend denied (requests improperly made and non-compliant with rules)
Whether citing older Eleventh Circuit precedent justifies Doe's embedded request	Doe cites Bryant v. Dupree to argue for a right to amend	Defendants contend the cited authority is no longer valid	Court finds authority overruled; no automatic right to amend without motion
Whether failure to set forth or attach the proposed amendment defeats the request for leave	Doe makes a general request to amend without specifics	Defendants object to lack of substance/supporting documentation	Request denied for lack of proposed amendment/substance
Compliance with local rules regarding certification of conferral	Doe does not certify conferral with opposing counsel	Defendants highlight lack of certification	Request denied for failure to certify conferral

Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001) (originally stated right to amend before dismissal with prejudice, but overruled)
Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (district courts not required to sua sponte grant leave to amend unless properly requested)
Rosenberg v. Gould, 554 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2009) (addresses procedural requirements for motions and relief requests)
Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 1999) (motions for leave to amend require setting forth substance or attaching amendment)