Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barros v. Young

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 30, 2010

VINCENT BARROS, PLAINTIFF
v.
CLAIRE YOUNG, AUDREY SCHAEFER, AND DOES 1-15, DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the amended motion (Doc. 30) for leave to file amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which was filed by plaintiff Vincent Barros ("Barros") on May 18, 2010, and of the motion (Doc. 29) to dismiss defendant Audrey Schaefer with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, filed jointly by Barros and defendant Audrey Schaefer ("Schaefer"), and it appearing that Barros' proposed amended complaint (Doc. 30, Ex. A) withdraws all claims against Schaefer, withdraws Count Two of the original complaint (Doc. 1), and adds various factual allegations and levies additional tort claims against defendant Claire Young ("Young") based upon information learned via discovery, (see Doc. 30), and recognizing that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires," FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2), and that in the absence of "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 . . . , [or] futility of amendment," leave to amend should be freely given, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), and concluding that the proposed amendments appear in good faith to refine the complaint and are not facially futile, see In re Merck & Co., Inc. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 493 F.3d 393, 400 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "[f]utility means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted" (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997))), and that dismissal of defendant Schaefer will not unfairly prejudice defendant Young,*fn1 and observing that Young filed a motion (Doc. 10) to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 1) on January 25, 2010, and that Barros filed motions (Docs. 15, 16) to strike Young's motion (Doc. 10) to dismiss on February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010, and noting that an "amended complaint supersedes the original version," Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002); see also 6 CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476, at 556 (2d ed. 1990), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion (Doc. 30) for leave to file amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) is GRANTED. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The Clerk of Court is instructed to DOCKET Barros' proposed amended complaint, which appears as Exhibit A to Doc. 30, as a properly filed amended complaint.*fn2

2. The joint motion (Doc. 29) to dismiss defendant Audrey Schaefer with prejudice is GRANTED. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). Defendant Audrey Schaefer is TERMINATED as a party to the above-captioned litigation.

3. The motion (Doc. 10) to dismiss the complaint, and the motions (Docs. 15, 16) to strike the motion (Doc. 10) to dismiss, are DENIED as moot. See Snyder, 303 F.3d at 276.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.