UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

THE BUCKEYE RANCH, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DISABILIY RIGHTS OHIO, 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action 2:18-cv-906 

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”) (ECF No. 15) and Defendant’s Response in Opposition 

(ECF No. 20). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Disability Rights Ohio (“DRO”) commenced an action against The Buckeye Ranch, Inc. 

(“Buckeye Ranch”) in this Court on August 16, 2018. (See Disability Rights Ohio v. The 

Buckeye Ranch, Inc., Civil Action 2:18-cv-894.) On August 17, 2018, Buckeye Ranch 

commenced the present action against DRO (ECF No. 1) and filed its First Amended Complaint 

on August 21, 2018 (ECF No. 8). The day after Buckeye Ranch filed its First Amended 

Complaint in this action, the Court determined that the two actions are related and effectively 

consolidated them. (ECF Nos. 9, 11.) 

On October 12, 2018, DRO amended its complaint against Buckeye Ranch in the related 

action, and Buckeye Ranch filed an Answer and Counterclaim to DRO’s Amended Complaint on 
2 

November 7, 2018. (Civil Action 2:18-cv-894, ECF Nos. 22, 28.) The same day, Buckeye 

Ranch filed the present motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in this action. 

(ECF No. 15.) Buckeye Ranch’s proposed Second Amended Complaint in this action asserts 

identical claims to those asserted in Buckeye Ranch’s Counterclaim in the related action. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

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). “The thrust of Rule 15 

is to reinforce the principle that cases should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities 

of pleadings.” Teft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); Oleson v. 

United States, 27 F. App’x 566, 569 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted) (noting that 

courts interpret the language in Rule 15(a) as conveying “a liberal policy of permitting 

amendments to ensure the determination of claims on their merits”). “Nevertheless, leave to 

amend ‘should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results 

in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.’” Carson v. U.S. Office of 

Special Counsel, 633 F.3d 487, 495 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 

753 (6th Cir. 1995)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

DRO argues that the Second Amended Complaint is redundant with the Counterclaim in 

the related action, and thus DRO will incur unnecessary costs in responding to both the 

Counterclaim and the Second Amended Complaint. (Resp. 1–2, ECF No. 20.) However, given 

that the two pleadings are nearly verbatim, the time and expense of responding to both will be 

little more than that required to respond to the Counterclaim alone. Additionally, Buckeye 

Ranch asserts that the Second Amended Complaint will address deficiencies identified by DRO 

when moving to dismiss Buckeye Ranch’s First Amended Complaint, a point which DRO does 
3 

not address. (Mot. 2, ECF No. 15.) Further, there is no evidence that Buckeye Ranch brings the 

Second Amended Complaint in bad faith or for dilatory purposes, or that it would result in 

prejudice to DRO. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to GRANT Buckeye Ranch’s 

Motion. (ECF No. 15.) 

Buckeye Ranch’s filing of the Second Amended Complaint moots the pending Motion to 

Dismiss by DRO. (ECF No. 14.) DRO remains free to challenge the Second Amended 

Complaint by filing a new motion to dismiss or renewing its previous motion. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For foregoing reasons, Buckeye Ranch’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

Complaint is GRANTED. (ECF No. 15.) The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint, attached to its Motion as Exhibit 1. (ECF No. 15-1.) DRO’s Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT and WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a 

motion to dismiss challenging Buckeye Ranch’s Second Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE