RUST v. RUST

M.D. Georgia

RUST v. RUST

DecidedApril 6, 2023

Docket7:21-cv-00105

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

RUST v. RUST, (M.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

PIMPAKTRA RUST,

Plaintiff. Case No. 7:21-CV-105 (HL)

v.

VINA ELISE RUST, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is the Plaintiff Pimpaktra Rust’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Join Goodenow LLC as a Defendant (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, that motion (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to add a claim against Goodenow for declaratory judgment “that (a) the deed of the [property at issue] to Goodenow was an invalid transfer, or in the alternative, was limited to the life of Richard C. Rust; and (b) Goodenow does not hold title to the [property at issue.]” (Doc. 42 at 2.) Plaintiff “seeks to join Goodenow out of an abundance of caution in the event that the Court finds it is a necessary or indispensable party.” (Id. at 3 (citing Hudson v. Newell, 172 F.2d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1949).) Plaintiff also cites Defendants’ use of the affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to join an indispensable party and permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 as reasons for the proposed amendment and joinder. (Id. at 3-5.)

Under Rule 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Amendment may be denied in instances where “there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; where allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; or where amendment would

be futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff timely filed the motion for leave to amend, and there is no indication of bad faith or dilatory motive. The amendment should not unduly prejudice either the current defendants or the proposed defendant, as Defendants have been aware of Goodenow’s relation to the case since its inception and Goodenow has had notice

of this case since it was filed, as all of Goodenow’s co-managers are already parties to the case. Additionally, Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s motion. Therefore, the Court finds no reason to deny leave to amend the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Join Goodenow LLC as a Defendant (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2023.

s/Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

aem

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 GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

PIMPAKTRA RUST,

Plaintiff. Case No. 7:21-CV-105 (HL)

v.

VINA ELISE RUST, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is the Plaintiff Pimpaktra Rust’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Join Goodenow LLC as a Defendant (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, that motion (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to add a claim against Goodenow for declaratory judgment “that (a) the deed of the [property at issue] to Goodenow was an invalid transfer, or in the alternative, was limited to the life of Richard C. Rust; and (b) Goodenow does not hold title to the [property at issue.]” (Doc. 42 at 2.) Plaintiff “seeks to join Goodenow out of an abundance of caution in the event that the Court finds it is a necessary or indispensable party.” (Id. at 3 (citing Hudson v. Newell, 172 F.2d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1949).) Plaintiff also cites Defendants’ use of the affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to join an indispensable party and permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 as reasons for the proposed amendment and joinder. (Id. at 3-5.)

Under Rule 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Amendment may be denied in instances where “there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; where allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; or where amendment would

be futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff timely filed the motion for leave to amend, and there is no indication of bad faith or dilatory motive. The amendment should not unduly prejudice either the current defendants or the proposed defendant, as Defendants have been aware of Goodenow’s relation to the case since its inception and Goodenow has had notice

of this case since it was filed, as all of Goodenow’s co-managers are already parties to the case. Additionally, Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s motion. Therefore, the Court finds no reason to deny leave to amend the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Join Goodenow LLC as a Defendant (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2023.

s/Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

aem

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

RUST v. RUST, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rust-v-rust-gamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack