Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Robert Dakin moved for leave to amend his complaint to correct a typographical error that mistakenly referenced 'asbestos' exposure instead of 'silica' and to state no asbestos-related claim. The court granted the motion, finding the error was typographical and the amendment was not futile, though jurisdictional issues regarding remand will be addressed in a subsequent motion.
Issues
The court addressed whether to grant the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to correct a typographical error changing 'asbestos' exposure to 'silica' exposure. The court found the error was clear, the amendment was not futile, and it was in the interest of justice to grant leave. The court deferred the jurisdictional question (whether the amendment would divest federal jurisdiction) to a subsequent motion for remand.
Holdings
The Court finds no substantial reason to deny leave to amend and holds that it is in the interest of justice to grant leave to amend. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended and Restated Complaint (Rec. Doc. 21) is GRANTED; the Second Amended and Restated Complaint shall be entered into the record.
Remedies
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended and restated complaint to correct a typographical error regarding asbestos exposure and remove asbestos-related claims, enabling the plaintiff to seek remand to state court.
Legal Principles
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which permits amendments by leave of court when justice so requires. The Fifth Circuit requires a district court to have a 'substantial reason' to deny leave, and the court found no such reason here, noting the amendment was not futile and there was no undue delay or bad faith.
Precedent Name
Rivera v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
Cited Statute
- 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)
- Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act
Judge Name
- Janis van Meerveld
- Nannette Jolivette Brown
Passage Text
- The Court finds that the interests of justice require that Mr. Dakin be granted leave to amend. He seeks to remove his asbestos exposure claim. Whatever the impact on this Court's jurisdiction, the amendment is not futile in the sense that the Second Amended Complaint does not state a claim. Trial has not been set and there has been no undue delay. Nor can the Court conclude that Mr. Dakin is in bad faith. He represents, and it appears to be true, that the continued reference to asbestos in the First Amended Petition was a typographical error.
- The Court finds no substantial reason to deny leave to amend and holds that it is in the interest of justice to grant leave to amend. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended and Restated Complaint (Rec. Doc. 21) is GRANTED; the Second Amended and Restated Complaint shall be entered into the record.