United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
K. DuBose, Chief United States District Judge.
action is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint by Plaintiff WM Mobile Bay Environmental
Center, Inc. (WM Mobile) and the objection filed by Defendant
The City of Mobile Solid Waste Disposal Authority (the
Authority) (docs. 54, 59). Upon consideration, and for the
reasons set forth herein, the motion is
GRANTED. Accordingly, WM Mobile shall file
its amended complaint on or before June 14, 2019 and
Defendants shall file their responsive pleading on or before
June 21, 2019.
breach of contract action, WM Mobile moves to amend to allege
facts relating to a breach that occurred after the complaint
was filed and to seek additional damages related to this
breach. Review of the proposed amended complaint shows that
WM Mobile seeks damages for capital expenses and operational
costs on grounds that Defendants refused to reimburse WM
Mobile for invoices submitted in April 2019.
Authority objects to the amendment on grounds that damages
for capital expenses are not recoverable under the relevant
provision of the contract at issue. The Authority also
asserts that the capital expenses that form part of the basis
of WM Mobile's claims were incurred by Waste Away Group,
Inc., an Alabama citizen, and that those damages should be
pursued in a separate action between the proper parties.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amended and
supplemental pleadings. At this stage of the litigation, and
absent the Defendants' written consent, WM Mobile may
amend its pleadings only with leave of the court.
See Fed R. Civ P. 15(a)(2). The Rule instructs the
district court that it “should freely give leave”
to amend the complaint “when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Therefore,
“unless a substantial reason exists to deny leave to
amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad
enough to permit denial[.]” City of Miami v. Bank
of America Corp., 800 F.3d 1262, 1286 (11th Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted). The district court “may consider
several factors when deciding whether to grant a motion to
amend, including ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive [on the part of the movant], repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Perez v.
Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1340-1341 (11th Cir.
2014) (citing Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v.
Florida Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d
1232, 1241 (11th Cir.2009) (quoting Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 (1962)); Donley v.
City of Morrow, Georgia, 601 Fed.Appx. 805, 810 (11th
Cir. 2015) (same).
motion was timely filed April 15, 2019, because the deadline
for amendment of pleadings was April 30, 2019 (doc. 44).
Also, discovery does not end until December 4, 2019
(Id.) Thus, the parties have sufficient time to
conduct discovery regarding the additional claims such that
there does not appear to be any undue prejudice to the
Authority or the City of Mobile. WM Mobile points out that
the parties are exchanging written discovery. The docket
indicates that the Authority served written discovery on
March 15, 2019 (doc. 53), that WM Mobile served written
discovery on April 14, 2019 (doc. 52), and that the City of
Mobile served written discovery on April 22, 2019 (doc. 58).
The docket does not indicate that WM Mobile has engaged in
any undue delay or bad faith, exhibited a dilatory motive, or
repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies. The Authority did not
argue that allowing the amendment would be futile.
the Court has not ascertained any substantial reason to deny
the motion, the interests of justice indicate that it should
be granted. See United States v. One Piece of Real Prop.
Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 182 Fed.Appx.
921, 924-925 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We have accepted a
policy of liberal amendments and supplements to the pleadings
under Rule 15.”); U.S. for Use and Benefit of Krupp
Steel Products, Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co. 831 F.2d 978, 983
(11th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted) (explaining that the
Eleventh Circuit has “accepted a policy of liberal
amendment.”); Borden, Inc. v. Florida East Coast
Ry. Co., 772 F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir. 1985)
(“There is a strong policy embodied in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 15 particularly, favoring
the liberality of amendment”); Dussouy v. Gulf
Coast Investment Co., 660 F.2d 594, 597 (5th
Cir. 1981) (“The policy of the federal rules is to
permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of
claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from becoming
a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading.”).
 “Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure applies to supplemental pleadings and sets
forth in relevant part that “[o]n motion and reasonable
notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve
a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction,
occurrence, or event that happened after the ...