KAZAK AND KAZAK REAL ESTATE
v.
TRUIST
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted when justice requires, and the defendant did not demonstrate a substantial reason to deny the motion.
Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to recover damages from the defendant arising out of allegedly unauthorized wire transfers. The defendant obj…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Leave To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 28.)1 Defendant responded (Doc. 31), making this matter ripe. For the below reasons, the motion is granted. In this action, Plaintiffs seek to recover damages from Defendants arising out of allegedly unauthorized wire transfers. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11.) Instead of filing a response to that motion, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. 28.) Defendants object to the Court granting Plaintiffs leave to amend on the grounds that it would be futile to do so as the proposed
Rule 15 instructs that when a court considers a motion to amend a pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “[T]here must be a substantial reason to deny a motion to amend, such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, ... undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Nance v. Ricoh Elecs., Inc., 381 Fed. Appx. 919, 924 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted). Regarding futility, the denial of leave to amend is justified “when the [amended] complaint is still subject to dismissal.” Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F. 3d 1310, 1319 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). The Court has considered the parties’ arguments in support of and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend and finds that Defendant has not shown a substantial reason to deny the motion at this point in the litigation. It might be that the amended complaint will not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but that issue should be decided in a motion to dismiss if Defendants wish to challenge the pleading. By allowing the amendment, the Court makes no finding on whether it can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or any other appropriate ground. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to immediately file the amended complaint as a separately docket entry. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this April 28, 2023.
Gh ud 7 Kéfle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record