Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_23-cv-00124/USCOURTS-alsd-2_23-cv-00124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JACQUES RUFFIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 2:23-00124-KD-MU

)

DRAX BIOMASS, INC, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Plaintiff Jacque Ruffin’s First Amended Complaint 

(doc. 29). Ruffin filed his First Amended Complaint without filing a motion for leave to file an 

amended complaint as required by the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (doc. 17) and without 

obtaining either leave of Court or the written consent of the opposing party as required by Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, in lieu of striking the First Amended Complaint, the Court 

construed it as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add Bruks Siwertell, Inc., as a 

Defendant, and to add new claims (doc. 33). Defendant Drax Biomass, Inc. was given an 

opportunity to respond to the construed Motion but did not (doc. 33). Instead, Drax filed an 

answer to the First Amended Complaint (doc. 34). 

Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED. The 

First Amended Complaint (doc. 29) is now the operative complaint in this action. Architectural 

Ingenieria Siglo XXI, LLC v. Dominican Republic, 2023 WL 8946765, at *4 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 

2023) (“The Amended Complaint is the operative complaint in this matter.”). The newly added 

Defendant Bruks Siwertell, Inc. shall file its answer or otherwise respond as provided in Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(a) (“Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading. (1) In General. Unless another time is 

specified by this rule or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive pleading is as follows:

Case 2:23-cv-00124-KD-MU Document 38 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

(A) A defendant must serve an answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the summons 

and complaint”).

At this stage in the litigation, and absent Defendant Drax’s written consent, Rule 15(a)(2) 

instructs the Court that it “should freely give leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Therefore, “unless a substantial reason exists to deny leave to amend, the 

discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial[.]” City of Miami v. Bank of 

America Corp., 800 F.3d 1262, 1286 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). The Court “may 

consider several factors when deciding whether to grant a motion to amend, including ‘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, [and] futility of amendment.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 

F.3d 1329, 1340–1341 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v. Florida 

Mowing & Landscape Services, Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962)); Donley v. City of Morrow, Georgia, 601 

Fed. Appx. 805, 810 (11th Cir. 2015) (same). 

The docket does not indicate that Ruffin engaged in any undue delay or bad faith, 

exhibited a dilatory motive, or repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies. Ruffin filed the construed 

motion within the time allowed by the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (doc. 17). Also, discovery 

does not end until September 3, 2024 (Id.). Therefore, sufficient time exists for discovery such 

that the parties should not be prejudiced by the addition of a new defendant and new claims. No 

argument has been raised that allowing the amendment would be futile. 

Since the Court has not ascertained any substantial reason to deny Ruffin’s construed 

motion, the interests of justice indicate that it should be granted. See Borden, Inc. v. Florida East 

Case 2:23-cv-00124-KD-MU Document 38 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

Coast Ry. Co., 772 F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir. 1985) (“There is a strong policy embodied in the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 15 particularly, favoring the liberality of 

amendment”). 

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of January 2024. 

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00124-KD-MU Document 38 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>