S&S Holdco, Inc. v. Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc.

S.D. Ohio

S&S Holdco, Inc. v. Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc.

DecidedMay 29, 2020

Docket1:17-cv-00783

StatusUnknown

This text of S&S Holdco, Inc. v. Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc. (S&S Holdco, Inc. v. Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

S&S Holdco, Inc. v. Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc., (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

S&S HOLDCO, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-783 Plaintiff, Bertelsman, J. Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

THREE RIVERS PROVIDER ORDER NETWORK, INC., Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff S&S Holdco, Inc.’s motion to strike defendant’s amended counterclaim (Doc. 63), defendant Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc.’s opposing memorandum (Doc. 64), and plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 66). In the alternative, defendant moves for leave to file its amended counterclaim (Doc. 65), which plaintiff opposes (Doc. 67). Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint with leave of court on January 24, 2020. (Doc. 61). Defendant filed an answer and first amended counterclaim to the second amended complaint on February 14, 2020. (Doc. 62). Plaintiff contends that defendant improperly filed the answer and amended counterclaim without first seeking leave of Court, which plaintiff asserts is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). (Doc. 63 at 2, citing Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp., 25 F. Supp. 3d 170 (D. Mass. 2014)).1 Plaintiff asks the Court to strike 0F defendant’s pleading and require defendant to seek leave to amend its counterclaim. (Id.). Defendant subsequently moved for leave to file its amended counterclaim on March 26, 2020. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff argues in response that to the extent defendant is permitted to amend its counterclaim, plaintiff will need to conduct additional discovery on defendant’s newly-asserted

1 Plaintiff alleges that “courts in this circuit [] have been clear that Rule 15(a)(2)’s leave requirement applies to amendments to a party’s counterclaims, including when responding to an amended complaint”; however, plaintiff has not provided any citations for cases from the Sixth Circuit in its motion to strike. counterclaim for unjust enrichment. (Doc. 67). Plaintiff does not otherwise object to the proposed amendment. Because plaintiff does not oppose defendant’s motion for leave to amend, the Court will allow defendant to amend its counterclaim and give plaintiff additional time to conduct discovery on the unjust enrichment claim if necessary. Defendant’s motion for leave to file its answer and amended counterclaim (Doc. 65) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s answer and amended counterclaim (Doc. 63) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 29, 2020 Harn Ke Rethond Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

S&S HOLDCO, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-783 Plaintiff, Bertelsman, J. Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

THREE RIVERS PROVIDER ORDER NETWORK, INC., Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff S&S Holdco, Inc.’s motion to strike defendant’s amended counterclaim (Doc. 63), defendant Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc.’s opposing memorandum (Doc. 64), and plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 66). In the alternative, defendant moves for leave to file its amended counterclaim (Doc. 65), which plaintiff opposes (Doc. 67). Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint with leave of court on January 24, 2020. (Doc. 61). Defendant filed an answer and first amended counterclaim to the second amended complaint on February 14, 2020. (Doc. 62). Plaintiff contends that defendant improperly filed the answer and amended counterclaim without first seeking leave of Court, which plaintiff asserts is required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). (Doc. 63 at 2, citing Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp., 25 F. Supp. 3d 170 (D. Mass. 2014)).1 Plaintiff asks the Court to strike 0F defendant’s pleading and require defendant to seek leave to amend its counterclaim. (Id.). Defendant subsequently moved for leave to file its amended counterclaim on March 26, 2020. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff argues in response that to the extent defendant is permitted to amend its counterclaim, plaintiff will need to conduct additional discovery on defendant’s newly-asserted

1 Plaintiff alleges that “courts in this circuit [] have been clear that Rule 15(a)(2)’s leave requirement applies to amendments to a party’s counterclaims, including when responding to an amended complaint”; however, plaintiff has not provided any citations for cases from the Sixth Circuit in its motion to strike. counterclaim for unjust enrichment. (Doc. 67). Plaintiff does not otherwise object to the proposed amendment. Because plaintiff does not oppose defendant’s motion for leave to amend, the Court will allow defendant to amend its counterclaim and give plaintiff additional time to conduct discovery on the unjust enrichment claim if necessary. Defendant’s motion for leave to file its answer and amended counterclaim (Doc. 65) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s answer and amended counterclaim (Doc. 63) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 29, 2020 Harn Ke Rethond Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

S&S Holdco, Inc. v. Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-holdco-inc-v-three-rivers-provider-network-inc-ohsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack