Jackson v. Standard Mortgage Corporation, 6:18-cv-00927. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20190802998
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM RULING PATRICK J. HANNA , Magistrate Judge . Currently pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Rec. Doc. 41). In the motion, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants did not consent to her filing the proposed amended complaint. However, the time for filing an opposition to the motion has elapsed without the defendants opposing the motion. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, a court should freely give leave to amend a complaint when j
Summary: MEMORANDUM RULING PATRICK J. HANNA , Magistrate Judge . Currently pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Rec. Doc. 41). In the motion, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants did not consent to her filing the proposed amended complaint. However, the time for filing an opposition to the motion has elapsed without the defendants opposing the motion. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, a court should freely give leave to amend a complaint when ju..
More
MEMORANDUM RULING
PATRICK J. HANNA, Magistrate Judge.
Currently pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Rec. Doc. 41). In the motion, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants did not consent to her filing the proposed amended complaint. However, the time for filing an opposition to the motion has elapsed without the defendants opposing the motion.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, a court should freely give leave to amend a complaint when justice so requires. The decision to allow amendment of a party's pleadings lies within the sound discretion of the district court,1 and a district court must have a substantial reason to deny a request for leave to amend.2 No such reason having been identified in this case, this Court is aware of no basis on which the motion should be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave (Rec. Doc. 41) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument on the motion for leave, which was previously scheduled for September 12, 2019, is CANCELLED.
FootNotes
1. Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994); Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 1991).
2. Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004); Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. American Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2002).
Source: Leagle
