Miller-Rich v. Altum Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Background

Nancy Miller-Rich filed the original complaint on April 28, 2022. The court later set deadlines for Defendants’ anticipated motions to dismiss and for Miller-Rich’s response. After Defendants filed their motions, the parties jointly requested additional time for the briefing. The court extended Miller-Rich’s deadline to January 18, 2023, to file her opposition papers.

Instead of filing an opposition, Miller-Rich filed an amended complaint on January 18, 2023. Defendants asked the court to strike the amended complaint, arguing that the December 8 extension applied only to Miller-Rich’s opposition to the motions to dismiss and did not extend her time to amend the complaint as of right. Defendants also argued that the amendment would be futile and requested additional time to respond. Miller-Rich said she understood the extension to cover her time to amend and provided correspondence showing that her counsel had notified Defendants of the intended amendment before it was filed. Defense counsel responded to that notice, “Ok, thanks.”

Court’s Reasoning

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally directs courts to allow amendments when justice requires. The court described this as a liberal and permissive standard that reflects a preference for resolving disputes on their merits. The court also noted that a party generally has a right to amend a pleading within 21 days after a motion to dismiss is filed.

The court found that the parties disagreed about whether its December 8, 2022 order extended the deadline to amend as well as the deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss. Although the parties’ extension request did not specifically mention the relevant amendment rules, the court found that Miller-Rich’s understanding appeared to be made in good faith. The court also found that Defendants did not notify her of their different interpretation when they learned of her intent to amend.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint and granted Miller-Rich’s motion to file an amended complaint. Because the amended complaint replaced the original complaint for purposes of the case, the court ordered that Defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaint were dismissed as moot. Defendants were ordered to respond to the amended complaint no later than February 17, 2023. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 37, 40, 51, and 52.