UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JERRY GOLDSTEIN, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 Civil Action 2:10-cv-01000

v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

CHRISTOPHER MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, seeking recovery for damages they sustained as a result of Defendants’

alleged fraudulent transfers of property primarily in the form of mineral exploration leasehold

interests to third-parties. This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, Instanter (ECF No. 48), Defendants’ Memorandum

in Opposition (ECF No. 51), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 52). For the reasons that follow, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. 

I.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 13, 2009, in the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey. (ECF No. 1.) On December 18, 2009, upon Defendants’ motion,

the New Jersey District Court ordered a change of venue to this Court. (ECF No. 32.) 

According to Plaintiffs, the New Jersey District Court Clerk encountered technical problems

which delayed formal transfer to this Court until November 8, 2010. During this time, Plaintiffs

retained their current counsel to represent their interests upon the transfer of the action to this

Case: 2:10-cv-01000-EAS-EPD Doc #: 53 Filed: 03/17/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Court. Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that he followed up with the New Jersey District Court

Clerk on several occasions until it effected a transfer to this Court.

Plaintiffs filed the subject Motion on January 24, 2011, seeking leave to file an amended

complaint to name new-party Defendants ProTerra Oil & Gas Exploration, Inc., Tiger Energy,

LLC, Roosevelt Properties, LLC, Trilink Energy, Inc., Ruxco Engergy, Inc., and Toltec Energy,

Inc. Based upon their investigation and informal discovery, Plaintiffs believe that these

proposed new-party defendants are part of Defendants’ “web of affiliated entities.” (Pls.’ Mot.

for Leave 3, ECF No. 48.) Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion, asserting that “permitting

Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings at this late stage will interpose unnecessary delay in this case

to the prejudice of the Defendants.” (Defs.’ Mem. in Opp. 1, ECF No. 51.) 

II.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Court should give leave for a party

to amend its pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has noted, Rule 15(a) supports the “principle that cases

should be tried on their merits” and not on technicalities, and thus “assumes ‘a liberal policy of

permitting amendments.’” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 937 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting

Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, when a party

decides “to advance a new claim as a result of [] discovery” Rule 15(a) provides for “liberal

amendment to the complaint.” Tucker v. Union of Needletrades, Indust. & Textile Employees,

407 F.3d 784, 788 (6th Cir. 2005). 

Several factors influence whether the Court should allow a party to amend its pleading

including “undue delay in filing, lack of notice to opposing party, bad faith by the moving party,

undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the amendment.” Seals v. Gen. Motors

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01000-EAS-EPD Doc #: 53 Filed: 03/17/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Corp., 546 F.3d 766, 770 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Wade v. Knoxville Utils. Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 459

(6th Cir. 2001)). Furthermore, in considering the issue of prejudice, the Court must ask whether

allowing a party to amend the pleadings would “require the opponent to expend significant

additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial” or cause considerable delay in

resolving the dispute. Phelps v. McClennan, 30 F.3d 658, 662–63 (6th Cir. 1994).

III.

The Court has considered the foregoing factors and concludes that justice requires

Plaintiffs be permitted to amend the Complaint. The Court recognizes that this case sat idle in

the New Jersey District Court, awaiting transfer for nearly a year. Defendants, however, fail to

present any evidence demonstrating that the delay in this case is attributable to Plaintiffs. 

Additionally, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ characterization of this action’s stage of

preparation. This action is not in a “late stage” of preparation as Defendants suggest. Rather,

this case is still in the discovery phase, with a discovery deadline of May 20, 2011, and a casedispositive motion deadline of June 17, 2011. The Court has not yet set this case for trial. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint, Instanter. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiffs must file their Amended Complaint on or before

MARCH 23, 2011. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

March 17, 2011 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01000-EAS-EPD Doc #: 53 Filed: 03/17/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>