McCoy v. Bogan
3:20-cv-00388-JWD-SDJ
M.D. La.Jul 1, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Lydia McCoy filed this action against multiple defendants; defendants filed several Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.
- McCoy moved for leave to file an amended complaint (R. Doc. 59) before discovery and status reporting had begun.
- The proposed amendment adds new factual allegations intended to cure defects identified in the pending motions to dismiss.
- The magistrate judge applied the liberal Rule 15(a)(2) standard (favoring amendment), noting the case is in its infancy and the plaintiff is pro se.
- The magistrate recommended granting leave to amend, filing the amended complaint into the record, and denying the existing motions to dismiss (R. Docs. 25, 42, 43, 44) without prejudice as moot.
- Defendants may refile motions to dismiss directed at the amended complaint within the 14-day period provided by Rule 15(a)(2); the court took no position on the merits of any Rule 12 challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) | McCoy seeks leave to amend to reclassify, clarify, and add factual allegations to cure defects | Defendants oppose, noting added length and indicating they would refile Rule 12 motions | Granted: leave to amend should be freely given absent substantial reason to deny; recommended to file amended complaint |
| Treatment of pending motions to dismiss after amendment | Amendment will moot defects in original complaints | Defendants implied prejudice and want to preserve motions | Denied without prejudice as moot; defendants may refile new motions addressing the amended complaint |
| Whether amendment is futile or merits of Rule 12 challenges | McCoy contends amendment cures deficiencies | Defendants will argue deficiencies remain and intend renewed motions | Court declined to decide futility now; left Rule 12 challenges for renewed motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1981) (articulates liberal Rule 15 approach and reasons that may justify denial of leave to amend)
- Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1985) (district court needs a substantial reason to deny leave to amend)
- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2002) (amendment can render a pending motion to dismiss moot)
- Roller Bearing Co. of America, Inc. v. American Software, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Conn. 2008) (preferred course is to grant leave to amend rather than dismiss when amendment may moot a motion to dismiss)
- Amanduron v. American Airlines, [citation="416 F. App'x 421"] (5th Cir. 2011) (district courts generally should give pro se plaintiffs an opportunity to amend before dismissing for failure to state a claim)