Filed: Feb. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2012
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge. Debt Collectors Gone Wild. That's what Justin and Julie Saturday claim happened in this, a proposed class action case based on, inter alia, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq . 1 Doc. 1-2 at 5. Previously, the Court denied defendant Memorial Health University Medical Center, Inc.'s (Memorial's) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion to compel plaintiffs to make a more definite statement of their claim. Doc. 22, reported at
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge. Debt Collectors Gone Wild. That's what Justin and Julie Saturday claim happened in this, a proposed class action case based on, inter alia, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq . 1 Doc. 1-2 at 5. Previously, the Court denied defendant Memorial Health University Medical Center, Inc.'s (Memorial's) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion to compel plaintiffs to make a more definite statement of their claim. Doc. 22, reported at 2..
More
ORDER
G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Debt Collectors Gone Wild. That's what Justin and Julie Saturday claim happened in this, a proposed class action case based on, inter alia, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.1 Doc. 1-2 at 5. Previously, the Court denied defendant Memorial Health University Medical Center, Inc.'s (Memorial's) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion to compel plaintiffs to make a more definite statement of their claim. Doc. 22, reported at 2011 WL 7094539. But it also directed plaintiffs to plead more facts anyway because class actions require that. 2011 WL 7094539 at * 2.
Subsequently, defendants Collectron, Inc., and AuditMed, Inc., moved for a judgment on the pleadings (JOP) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Doc. 24. So did Memorial. Doc. 25. They say plaintiffs' claims are time-barred, factually unsupported, or otherwise defective. Doc. 24-1; doc. 26. Plaintiffs disagree. Docs. 31 & 32. The district judge must rule on those matters.
The undersigned, in contrast, must rule on plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add MPPG, Inc., as a party defendant. Doc. 33. They want "to more specifically outline the factual allegations and claims against the existing and proposed defendants." Id. at 2. They also say that MMPG is a physicians' group which operates within Memorial, and it directly or indirectly bills and collects from the plaintiff class. Id. Hence, they want to cure any deficiencies and beef up their case. (The Court has stayed discovery in the meantime, doc. 40.) Collectron and AuditMed oppose:
Immediately moving this Court for leave to amend their Complaint, Plaintiffs have virtually conceded that their original Complaint is fatally deficient. The proposed Amended Complaint is equally deficient and fails to properly plead the Plaintiffs' claims. Counsel for Plaintiffs is known to this Court for filing defective pleadings and attempting to impose onerous discovery costs on their adversary only to seek leave to file further defective pleadings when their victim-defendants immediately move to dismiss their clients' claims. Plaintiffs wrongly ignore 11th Circuit authority governing the commencement of the statute of limitations on their claims. Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed.
Doc. 41 at 1-2 (footnote omitted); see also doc. 44 (additional opposition brief). Memorial also opposes. Doc. 43; see also doc. 42 (additional JOP brief).
This Court is guided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)'s instruction that leave to amend is to be "freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave is not automatically granted, however. Judges must "consider factors such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, the prejudice which would result to the non-movant, and the futility of the amendment." Bennett v. McGriff Transp., Inc., F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 220251 at * 1 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2012) (quotes and cite omitted; emphasis added).
A proposed amendment can be futile if, for example, it would be time-barred, or it is reasonably clear that there will be no evidence to support a claim's essential element. Id. (citing CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union, 236 F. App'x. 562, 563 (11th Cir. 2007)). And "[i]f [a p]laintiff cannot state a claim under the more-detailed Amended Complaint, his claims under the original Complaint will also warrant dismissal." Lipscomb v. Cronic, 2011 WL 6755198 at * 5 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 22, 2011).
A brief peek at the JOP motions, when read with the amendment-opposition briefs, reveals that the JOP motions have some heft to them.2
The record as developed thus far shows that the motion to amend is inextricably intertwined with the JOP motions. Accordingly, the Court DEFERS that motion (doc. 33) to the district judge. The previously imposed discovery stay continues pending disposition of the JOP and amend motions.
So ORDERED.
