Savovic v. GES Consulting Services, LLC
5:18-cv-00033
| W.D.N.C. | May 17, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Savovic moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint on May 3, 2018 to address issues raised by defendants' filings and disclosures.
- Parties had previously agreed (circa March 22, 2018) that they could join parties or amend pleadings on or before May 3, 2018.
- Defendant William S. Short filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint prior to the amended pleading.
- Defendants opposed the motion to amend on procedural grounds: plaintiff's counsel did not confer as required by Local Rule 7.1(b) and the case management plan lacked a specific amendment deadline.
- The court found no evidence of prejudice, bad faith, or futility from amendment and concluded the plaintiff's counsel should have conferred but that failure alone did not justify denial.
- Court granted leave to amend, ordered the Amended Complaint filed by May 21, 2018, and denied Short's motion to dismiss as moot (per the rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 | Savovic sought timely leave (per parties' agreement) to amend to address issues disclosed by defendants | Short argued procedural defects: counsel failed to confer under Local Rule 7.1(b) and no CM/Plan deadline for amendments | Granted: court allowed amendment; cited lack of prejudice, bad faith, or futility and party agreement on deadline |
| Whether failure to confer under Local Rule 7.1(b) warranted denial | Conferred informally by agreement on amendment deadline; filed timely | Defendants said formal conference requirement not satisfied | Denied as basis for refusal: court admonished counsel but declined to deny motion solely for failure to confer |
| Effect of filing an amended complaint on pending motion to dismiss | Amendment would supersede original complaint and address issues | Defendant's existing motion targets the superseded complaint | Motion to dismiss denied as moot; defendants may refile against amended complaint |
| Whether the Case Management Plan precluded amendment | Plaintiff relied on parties' separate agreement permitting amendment by May 3 | Defendants pointed to CM/Plan silence on an amendment deadline | Court held CM/Plan silence does not preclude amendment under Rule 15 and accepted the parties' agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2008) (leave to amend denied only for prejudice, bad faith, or futility)
- HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2001) (standards for denying amendment)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (district court discretion and factors for amendment decisions)
- Pittston Co. v. United States, 199 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 1999) (grant/denial of amendment within district court discretion)
- Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended complaint supersedes the original)
- Fawzy v. Wauquiez Boats SNC, 873 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2017) (same: properly filed amended complaint becomes operative pleading)
- Colin v. Marconi Commerce Sys. Emp. Ret. Plan, 335 F. Supp. 2d 590 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (earlier motions rendered moot by subsequent amended complaint)