Santiago v. Rossi
In the absence of undue prejudice, dilatory motive, bad faith or undue delay, a court may grant a timely motion to amend, to include additional defendants. On Dec. 28, 2012, which was three days before the Dec. 31, 2012, deadline for amended pleadings, the plaintiff requested the court's permission to amend the complaint, to join three additional defendants, Palauskas, Alejandro and Redeker. The defendant objected that the plaintiff lacks good cause, that the proposed amendments are futile and will cause undue delay, and that additional discovery will be required, if the court grants permission to add the defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides, '[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave . . . [which] the court should freely give when justice so requires.' A court possesses discretion to consider whether there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive or undue prejudice to the opposing party. Discovery is permitted until July 31, 2013. The court found that the plaintiff's motion for permission to amend was filed timely. The requested amendment is not futile and is not likely to result in the expenditure of significant additional resources. Denying the plaintiff's motion would not serve the interests of justice. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend.