Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_19-cv-00798/USCOURTS-alsd-1_19-cv-00798-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Removal of Civil/Criminal Action from State Court

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FARON WATERS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-0798-KD-C

)

ROY W. HALL, JR., and )

R an D TRUCKING, LLC, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Defendants Roy W. Hall, Jr. and R an D Trucking, 

LLC’s Motion to Strike Prejudgment Interest Demanded in Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint and the Response filed by Plaintiff Faron Waters (docs. 32, 35). 

Waters sued Defendants for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. 

(Doc. 28, Second Amended Complaint). Defendants move for an order to strike any claim for 

prejudgment interest in Waters’ demand for “general compensatory damages . . . plus interest 

and costs” (Doc. 32, Doc. 28). Defendants argue that under Alabama law, “pre-judgment interest 

is not recoverable on unliquidated damages for personal injuries” (Doc. 32, p. 1). In response, 

Waters moves the Court to grant his request to file a Third Amended Complaint, wherein the 

demand for “interest and costs” has been omitted (Doc. 35, Doc. 35-1). To date, Defendants have 

not filed any opposition to Waters’ request. 

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a “Motion to Strike”. The 

Rule states that the “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, 

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Waters’ demand or claim for “interest and costs” 

does not appear to fall within any of the listed items, which the Court may strike. Accordingly, 

Case 1:19-cv-00798-KD-C Document 42 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

the motion to strike is denied. 

However, the Court will consider Waters’ request to amend his complaint to eliminate the 

demand for interest and costs. At this procedural posture, where Waters has twice amended his 

complaint, he may amend his “pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the 

court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Defendants have not given their written consent. With 

respect to leave of court, the district courts “should freely give leave to amend ‘when justice so 

requires.’” Woldeab v.Dekalb County Board of Education, 885 F. 3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). “A district court need not, however, allow an amendment (1)

where there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure 

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (2) where allowing amendment would cause 

undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where amendment would be futile.” Bryant v. 

Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001).

The docket does not indicate any undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive or repeated 

failure to cure deficiencies on the part of the movant Waters. Allowing the amendment would not 

prejudice the Defendants. As Defendants point out in their motion to strike, under Alabama law, 

prejudgment interest may not be recovered on an unliquidated claim. State Farm Mutual

Insurance Co. v. Fox, 541 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Ala. 1989) (citations omitted). The Alabama courts 

have defined “unliquidated damages” as “damages that are not yet reduced to a certainty in 

respect of amount, nothing more being established that the plaintiff’s right to recover, or 

[damages] as cannot be fixed by a mere mathematical calculation from ascertained date in the 

case.” United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. German Auto, Inc., 591 So.2d 841, 843 (Ala. 1991)

(citation and internal quotations omitted); Colonial BancGroup, Inc. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers 

LLP, 2018 WL 6431011, at *5 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 26, 2018) (slip copy) (declining to award 

Case 1:19-cv-00798-KD-C Document 42 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

prejudgment interest on an uncontested portion of unliquidated damages, “[i]n light of the 

Alabama Supreme Court’s holding in German Auto” and the absence of Alabama case law). 

Moreover, allowing the amendment would not be futile. Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 

1310, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is justified by futility when the 

complaint as amended is still subject to dismissal.”). 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Waters’ request is GRANTED and he shall 

file his Third Amended Complaint on or before March 9, 2020. See S.D. Ala. Civil Local 

Rule 15(c) (“If the Court grants the motion to amend, the party must promptly file the amended 

pleading.). Defendants shall file any response to the Third Amended Complaint on or before

March 16, 2020. See S.D. Ala. Civil Local Rule 15(c) (“If a responsive pleading is required, any 

party that has appeared in the action and was served with the proposed amended pleading must 

serve an answer or other responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days after the Court grants the 

motion to amend.”). 

DONE and ORDERED this the 2nd day of March 2020. 

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00798-KD-C Document 42 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>