R. v. Tallapoosa County Board of Education

M.D. Alabama

R. v. Tallapoosa County Board of Education

DecidedFebruary 17, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00560

StatusUnknown

This text of R. v. Tallapoosa County Board of Education (R. v. Tallapoosa County Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. v. Tallapoosa County Board of Education, (M.D. Ala. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

D.R., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:22CV560-ECM ) (wo) TALLAPOOSA COUNTY BOARD ) OF EDUCATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now pending before the Court are the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (doc. 43), and two motions to dismiss the amended complaint (doc. 32 & 34). Contemporaneously with the motion to amend, the Plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 44). Generally, leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) does not require an amendment where “there has been undue delay in filing, bad faith or dilatory motives, prejudice to the opposing parties,” or where the amendment would be futile. Local 472 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting v. Ga. Power Co., 684 F.2d 721, 724 (11th Cir. 1982). The Plaintiffs represent in their motion that amendments are needed to clarify some of their factual allegations and claims. The Plaintiffs also contend that the second amended complaint relates back to the original pleading. Presumably, the Plaintiffs realized that amendment was needed in light of the grounds for dismissal advanced in the pending motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. It appears to the Court that the most prudent course is to allow the Plaintiffs to clarify

their facts and claims, without foreclosing any defenses the Defendants may have to the second amended complaint. Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (doc. 43) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (doc. 32 & 34), which are

directed to the previously filed amended complaint, are DENIED as moot. DONE this 17th day of February, 2023.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

D.R., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:22CV560-ECM ) (wo) TALLAPOOSA COUNTY BOARD ) OF EDUCATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now pending before the Court are the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (doc. 43), and two motions to dismiss the amended complaint (doc. 32 & 34). Contemporaneously with the motion to amend, the Plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 44). Generally, leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) does not require an amendment where “there has been undue delay in filing, bad faith or dilatory motives, prejudice to the opposing parties,” or where the amendment would be futile. Local 472 of United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting v. Ga. Power Co., 684 F.2d 721, 724 (11th Cir. 1982). The Plaintiffs represent in their motion that amendments are needed to clarify some of their factual allegations and claims. The Plaintiffs also contend that the second amended complaint relates back to the original pleading. Presumably, the Plaintiffs realized that amendment was needed in light of the grounds for dismissal advanced in the pending motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. It appears to the Court that the most prudent course is to allow the Plaintiffs to clarify

their facts and claims, without foreclosing any defenses the Defendants may have to the second amended complaint. Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (doc. 43) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (doc. 32 & 34), which are

directed to the previously filed amended complaint, are DENIED as moot. DONE this 17th day of February, 2023.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

R. v. Tallapoosa County Board of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-v-tallapoosa-county-board-of-education-almd-2023.