Motion to Amend Complaint Denied As Futile
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels, L.L.C. (In re Old Cold, LLC), 2021 BNH 003 (denying leave to amend complaint on futility grounds because proposed amended claims were either precluded by final sale order, application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or expiration of statute of limitations). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), as made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015, the “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).“This permissiveness, though, extends only so far.” Privitera v. Curran (In re Curran), 855 F.3d 19, 27 (1st Cir. 2017). “A court may deny leave to amend for a variety of reasons, including ‘futility, bad faith, undue delay, or a dilatory motive on the movant’s part.’” Id. at 27–28 (quoting Hatch v. Dep’t for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001));see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962) (referencing certain bases for denial, “such as
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”).
“In assessing futility, the [court] must apply the standard which applies to motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Adorno v. Crowley Towing & Transp. Co., 443 F.3d
122, 126 (1st Cir. 2006); see also Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (explaining that “[t]here is no practical difference … between a denial of a motion to
amend based on futility and the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim”). In assessing whether a claim would be dismissed, the Court must “take all well-pleaded facts as
true, but . . . need not credit a complaint’s bald assertions or legal conclusions,” Glassman, 90 F.3d at 628 (internal quotations omitted), and must draw all reasonable inferences favorable to
the plaintiff, see, e.g., Sanchez v. Pereira–Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 41 (1st Cir. 2009). In applying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) pleading criteria, an attempt to amend is regarded as futile if the
proposed complaint fails to allege “sufficient facts to show that . . . a plausible entitlement to relief.” Sanchez, 590 F.3d at 41 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)).
Collateral estoppel, often referred to as issue preclusion, “bars parties from re-litigating issues of either fact or law that were adjudicated in an earlier proceeding.” Robb Evans &
Assocs., LLC v. United States, 850 F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 2017).17 Collateral estoppel is applicable to both “ultimate issues” and “necessary intermediate findings . . . to preclude relitigation.”
Rodríguez-García v. Miranda-Marín, 610 F.3d 756, 771 (1st Cir. 2010). This doctrine requires that “(1) both proceedings involved the same issue of law or fact, (2) the parties actually litigated
that issue, (3) the prior court decided that issue in a final judgment, and (4) resolution of that issue was essential to judgment on the merits.” Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon N.E. Inc., 603 F.3d
71, 95 (1st Cir. 2010).
2021-bnh-003 Mission Product Holdings Leave to Amend Complaint.
