US Dominion, Inc. v. Newsmax Media, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

US DOMINION, INC., DOMINION ) VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., and ) DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS ) CORPORATION, ) C.A. No.: N21C-08-063 EMD )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

NEWSMAX MEDIA, INC., and ) NEWSMAX BROADCASTING, LLC, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING: (A) DEFENDANT NEWSMAX MEDIA, INC.’S MOTION TO AMEND; AND (B) DOMINION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ADDING NEWSMAX BROADCASTING, LLC AS A CO-DEFENDANT

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant

Newsmax Media, Inc.; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs US

Dominion, Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation

(collectively, “Dominion”); the March 21, 2025 hearing on the two Motions for Summary

Judgment; Dominion’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Adding Newsmax

Broadcasting, LLC as a Co-Defendant (the “Dominion Motion to Amend”) filed by Dominion;

Defendant Newsmax Media, Inc.’s Motion to Amend Answer (the “Newsmax Motion to

Amend”) filed by Newsmax Media, Inc.; the Letter, dated April 2, 2025, from Brian F. Farnan,

Esq., to the Honorable Eric M. Davis; the Letter, dated April 2, 2025, from C. Barr Flinn, Esq.,

to the Honorable Eric M. Davis; and the entire record of this civil action, the Court holds as

follows:

Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 15(a) controls whether a party may amend their

pleadings. Rule 15(a) provides:

Amendments. -- A party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise, a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be the longer, unless the Court otherwise orders.

Leave to amend pleadings “should be freely given unless there is evidence of undue

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure

deficiencies, prejudice, futility, or the like.” 1 A motion for leave to amend is futile “where the

amended complaint would be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

claim” 2 and where a claim “could not survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.” 3 “The Court

may also consider the proposed amendment’s impact on a scheduled trial date.” 4

The purpose of Rule 15 is to encourage the disposition of litigation on its merits. 5 A

decision to permit or deny an amendment under Rule 15(a) is left to the discretion of the trial

judge. 6 It is the general policy in this jurisdiction to freely permit amendments to pleadings

unless the opposing party would be seriously prejudiced by the amendment. 7 Rule 15(a) clearly

directs liberal granting of amendments “when justice so requires.” 8

1 Pettit v. Counter Life Homes, Inc., 2006 WL 2811707, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2006). 2 Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 131 A.3d 806, 811 (Del. 2016). 3 Cummings v. Estate of Lewis, 2013 WL 979417, at *9 (Del. Ch. Mar. 14, 2013). 4 CNH Indus. Am. LLC v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 149 A.3d 242, 246 (Del. Super. 2016). 5 Mullen v. Alarmguard of Delmarva, Inc., 625 A.2d 258, 263 (Del. 1993). 6 Wilson v. Consumer’s Life Ins. Co., 2000 WL 1211169, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 1, 2000). 7 Id. 8 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15(a).

3

The Court, exercising its discretion, finds cause exists to grant the Dominion Motion to

Amend and the Newsmax Motion to Amend. The Court finds that granting this relief will

encourage disposition of this civil action on the merits. Moreover, the parties have failed to

demonstrate that they will be “seriously prejudiced” by the proposed amendments. The Court

gave notice and discussed these amendments with the parties at the March 21, 2025 hearing.

Since that time, neither party has articulated a genuine reason why they would be prejudiced, let

alone seriously prejudiced, by the proposed amendments. 9

The parties shall file their amended pleadings by noon on Monday, April 14, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2025 Wilmington, Delaware /s/ Eric M. Davis Eric M. Davis, Judge

cc: File&ServeXpress

9 The Court also addresses the amendment issues in its Opinion on the two Motions for Summary Judgment.