Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Anthony, No. 1:2016cv00284 - Document 39 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/24/16. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies the defendant's motion for reconsideration. (Related Doc. 33 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Anthony Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : KYLE ANTHONY, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 16-CV-00284 OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving Doc. 33] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On May 16, 2016 Plaintiff Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. filed a motion for leave to file first amended complaint instanter. On May 17, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file instanter the first amended complaint. On May 17, 2016, Defendant Kyle Anthony filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s granting of the motion for leave to amend the complaint. For the reasons below, this Court DENIES the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Law and Discussion After a responsive pleading has been filed to a complaint, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may file an amended complaint “only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.”1 Rule 15(a) provides that such “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”2 Rule 15 “reinforce[s] the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings,’”3 and therefore assumes “a liberal 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Id. 3 Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir.1982)). 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 16-cv-00284 Gwin, J. policy of permitting amendments.”4 However, several factors should be considered in determining whether to grant a motion to amend: “undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment are all factors which may affect the decision.”5 Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint for the purpose of correcting typographical errors and to add an Addendum that should have been attached to the exhibit to the original Complaint but was inadvertently omitted. Defendant does not seem to oppose the typographical corrections. Instead, Defendant Anthony argues that this Court should not have given Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint by attaching the omitted exhibit. However, Defendant Anthony received the Addendum from Plaintiff in the course of discovery. Further, it seems unlikely that Defendant was completely unaware of the addendum given that it was a part of its own employment agreement with Plaintiff Gallagher. The addendum is relevant to the dispute at hand and does not unfairly prejudice the Defendant. Conclusion For the reasons above, this Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 24, 2016 4 5 Ellison v. Ford Motor Co., 847 F.2d 297, 300 (6th Cir. 1988). Wade v. Knoxville Utilities Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2001) s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.