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.

Perry v. Mason Security Network, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London

January 9, 2015

RICHARD H. PERRY, Plaintiff.
v.
MASON SECURITY NETWORK, INC., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (DE 34). This matter is akin to Plaintiff Andrea Lee's motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the related case. See Lee v. Mason Sec. Network, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-138-KKC-HAI, 2014 WL 6979439 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 9, 2014). For all the reasons stated in the Court's December 9, 2014 Opinion and Order, the Court will grant Plaintiff Richard Perry's motion to amend. See id.

Specifically, Perry's motion meets the permissive standard for granting leave to amend a pleading. See Seals v. Gen. Motors Corp., 546 F.3d 766, 770 (6th Cir. 2008) (listing the following pertinent factors: (1) timeliness; (2) lack of notice to the opposing party; (3) bad faith by the moving party and undue prejudice to the opposing party; (4) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments; and (5) futility of the amendment). First, Perry's motion is timely. The agreed schedule states that motions to join parties or amend the pleadings should be filed by December 15, 2014. (DE 30 at 2; DE 35 at 1.) Perry filed this motion on December 12, 2014. Second, there is no lack of notice to Mason Security Network because the parties have until April 30, 2015 to complete discovery. (DE 30 at 2; DE 35 at 2.) Third, there is no bad faith by Perry and there is no undue prejudice to Mason Security Network. Fourth, this is Perry's first motion for leave to file an amended complaint after Defendant Theodore "Ted" Mason's voluntary dismissal from bankruptcy restored this matter to the Court's active docket. ( See DE 28.) And finally, for the reasons stated in Lee, 2014 WL 6979439, at *2, this motion is not futile.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to file an amended complaint (DE 34) is GRANTED


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.