OPINION AND ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

Before the Court are Defendant Cardinal Industries, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 75), Defendant Walmart Inc's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 85), and Plaintiff George & Company LLC's responses (Doc. 79; Doc. 87).

This is a trademark infringement case that has been mired in jurisdictional disputes since it was filed over a year ago. After taking a break to allow for a magistrate settlement conference that reached an impasse, the Court now wades back in. The last time the Court looked at the issue, it found personal jurisdiction lacking for all then-named defendants. One of George & Co.'s theories for jurisdiction was based on Cardinal's consent to litigate here in a License Agreement. That theory failed because George & Co. did not plead an element required by Florida's long-arm statute: that the agreement involved consideration of at least $250,000. But George & Co. attached evidence to a response brief suggesting that it could satisfy the element given another opportunity. So the Court granted George & Co. leave to file a fourth amended complaint to correct the deficiency in its consent-jurisdiction allegations. But George & Co.'s Fourth Amended Complaint does far more. It adds a new defendant—Walmart—and six new claims. Cardinal proposes striking the Fourth Amended Complaint because George & Co. did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows parties to amend a pleading once as a matter of course, and then only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). The requirement for consent or leave is not a pointless formality. It promotes judicial economy by encouraging parties to confer about amendments. And when the parties cannot agree, it protects against undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futile amendments despite repeated failures to cure deficiencies. See Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1340 (11th Cir. 2014).

George & Co. has shown an understanding of the rules for amending pleadings. After the Court dismissed its First Amended Complaint, George & Co. filed a Second Amended Complaint that complied with the Court's order, then filed a motion for leave to file another amended complaint that added new claims and defendants. (Doc. 49). Considering the policy behind Rule 15 and the Court's previous warnings—the Court has twice admonished George & Co. to comply with the rules (Doc. 46; Doc. 57)—the Court is not inclined to let George & Co.'s latest infraction slide.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED.