JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Her Verified Complaint (the "Motion") (Doc. 16), Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20), Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32), and Plaintiff's Motion to Determine the Pending Motions together (Doc. 23).
Defendants have filed a Response to Plaintiff's motion to Amend (Doc. 18), and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. 19). Plaintiff has filed a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26), and Defendants have filed a Reply (Doc. 30). Finally, Defendants have filed a Response Opposing Plaintiff's Request to File Surreply (Doc. 33). The Court now rules on the motions.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Labrier filed a Complaint on September 12, 2012. (Doc. 1). Defendants Victoria Properties, Inc. and Vision Offices - Corporate Village, LP filed their Answer on October 4, 2012. (Doc. 5). On December 17, 2012, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which included a deadline to amend the Complaint by January 11, 2013. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff filed the pending Motion on January 3, 2013, a date within the January 11, 2013 deadline. (Doc. 16).
In her Motion, Plaintiff requests leave to amend her Complaint in two ways. (Doc. 16). First, Plaintiff requests leave to add two defendants: Vision Offices Executive Suites, LP ("Vision Executive") and its general partner Windsor Investments, LLC ("Windsor"). (Doc. 16). Second, Plaintiff requests leave to add a new cause of action alleging that Vision Executive and Windsor are the alter ego of named Defendant Victoria Properties, Inc. (Doc. 16). Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's Motion to amend the Complaint to add Vision Executive and Windsor. (Doc. 18). Defendants do, however, ask to be dismissed from the case if the Court grants Plaintiff's request for leave to add Vision Executive and Windsor and denies Plaintiff's request for leave to add an alter ego cause of action. (Doc. 18).
Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion to amend the Complaint to add a new cause of action alleging that Vision Executive and Windsor are the alter ego of Victoria Properties, Inc. on the basis that the proposed amendment is futile because Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts. (Doc. 18). In her Reply, Plaintiff argues that the proposed amendment does allege sufficient facts to prevent a finding of futility. (Doc. 19).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs motions to amend pleadings to add parties or claims before trial. Rule 15(a) states
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
Because Plaintiff filed the pending Motion outside Rule 15(a)(1)'s 21-day limits and Defendants have not given their written consent for the amendments, Plaintiff may ...