HOLDEN
v.
NORTONLIFELOCK INC.
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 granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding the futility arguments premature for this stage.
Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint and extend time to respond to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant opposed the amendment.…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(A)(2) Amendment Of Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 15), filed April 29, 2021. Defendant filed a response on May 13, 2021. See Defendant NortonLifeLock’s Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 21). With leave of Court, see Order (Doc. No. 31), entered June 3, 2021, Plaintiff on June 18, 2021 filed a Reply to Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 35).1
30 F. 3d 1402, 1405 (11th Cir. 1994). “Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed.” Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F. 3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); see also Coventry First, LLC v. McCarty, 605 F. 3d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 2010).
Upon review of the parties’ arguments regarding futility, the undersigned finds that the arguments are better addressed in a procedural posture of a dispositive motion and response. This is not a case where the argument for futility is so clear-cut that amendment should be foreclosed altogether at this stage. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED in part and DEEMED moot in part. 2. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 15, Ex. A) as of the date of this Order. 3. The Motion is DEEMED moot to the extent that Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 11). 4, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED as moot. Defendant shall respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. The temporary stay of discovery imposed by Endorsed Order (Doc. No. 25) remains in place pending further Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on July 22, 2021.
amen. Roo KIC dt
JAMES R. KLINDT
United States Magistrate Judge keb Copies to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962)
- Maynard v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Div. OF Univs. OF THE Fla. Dep't OF Educ., 342 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2003)
- Vernal Forbus v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 30 F.3d 1402 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Coventry First, LLC v. McCARTY, 605 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2010)