Garcia v. Infrasource Transmission Services Co et al, No. 3:2008cv01306 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 6 First Motion to Amend Complaint filed by Rafael Garcia. [Counsel granted leave to file an amended pleading under LR 15.1 is reminded to electronically file the amended pleading.] (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 12/29/08) (tln)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RAFAEL GARCIA, Plaintiff, VS. INFRASOURCE TRANSMISSION SERVICES CO., ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08-CV-1306-G ECF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff, Rafael Garcia ( Garcia or the plaintiff ), for leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND Garcia seeks to amend his complaint to plead that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint at 2. The defendants, Infrasource Transmission Services Company and Oren Hoyt Fackrell (collectively, Infrasource or the defendants ), filed a motion to dismiss Garcia s claims for lack of jurisdiction because the original complaint does not state the amount in controversy. Garcia now seeks to amend his answer to correct this omission. II. ANALYSIS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend [the party s] pleading only with the opposing party s written consent or the court s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) ( [L]eave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. ). Whether a motion to amend should be granted is within the discretion of the district court. Id. at 182. When exercising its discretion, the court may consider such factors as 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 by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc . . . . Overseas Inns S.A.P.A. v. United States, 911 F.2d 1146, 1150-51 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182). The Fifth Circuit, however, has stated that discretion may be a misleading term, for rule 15(a) severely restricts the judge s freedom to deny leave to amend. Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Investment Corporation, 660 F.2d 594, 597 (5th Cir. 1981). Rule 15(a) evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend. Id. Thus, unless there is a substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial. Id. at 598. -2- This is Garcia s first motion for leave to amend his complaint. He has thus not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies by previous amendments. More importantly, there is no suggestion that Garcia has filed this motion in bad faith or for the purpose of undue delay. Rather, Garcia seeks leave to amend his complaint in order to correct an omission in his original complaint and to assert that this court has subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants offer no reason, let alone a substantial reason, why Garcia should not be allowed to amend his complaint. The motion for leave to amend is therefore granted. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff s motion for leave to amend his complaint is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. December 29, 2008. ___________________________________ A. JOE FISH Senior United States District Judge -3-

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.