Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Health & Beauty Technologies, Inc. v. Merz Pharma GmbH KgaA, 7:18-CV-117-FL. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20181129d25 Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN , District Judge . This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion (DE 179) to amend complaint. Upon careful review of the motion, defendants' response in opposition, and reply thereto, plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. Defendants have not demonstrated that the proposed amended complaint is prejudicial, in bad faith, or futile, under the circumstances of this case. See Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178 , 182 (1962); Laber v. Harvey , 438 F.3d 404 , 426-27 (4th Ci
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion (DE 179) to amend complaint. Upon careful review of the motion, defendants' response in opposition, and reply thereto, plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. Defendants have not demonstrated that the proposed amended complaint is prejudicial, in bad faith, or futile, under the circumstances of this case. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426-27 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Therefore, the court in its discretion allows plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file their proposed second amended complaint within two days of the date of this order. In addition, where an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect, Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001), in anticipation of filing second amended complaint in light of this order, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE defendants' motion to dismiss first amended complaint (DE 145, 149).

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer