Source: http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180403_0000293.WKY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:02:07+00:00

Document:
This matter is before the Court on Defendants LeeCor Systems, LLC and Steven Medlin's motion for leave to file their joint amended answer, [DN 51.] Plaintiffs Jason and Dilenia Ingram responded, [DN 52], and Defendants replied, [DN 54.] Fully briefed, this matter is now ripe for decision. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
The Court set forth the detailed facts of this case in its prior Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Ingram v. Oasis Investments, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00206-TBR, 2017 WL 6508362, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2017), but includes a short summary here. Plaintiffs Jason and Dilenia Ingram filed suit against several defendants, including LeeCor Systems, LLC (“LeeCor”) and Steve Medlin, an employee of LeeCor, after the construction of a new home on the Ingrams' property went awry. The Ingrams allege that, during the time they worked with LeeCor and Medlin, they were “in the business of marketing and selling residential steel frame and prefabricated foam panel construction materials that are designed, manufactured, packaged and/or marketed by Defendant Premium Steel Building Systems, Inc.” [DN 1 at 10.] According to the Ingrams, “LeeCor and Medlin hold themselves out as having experience and expertise in selecting and/or recommending certain products for inclusion in a new home build, such as, but not limited to, steel framing and prefabricated foam walls” manufactured by Defendant Premium Steel Building Systems, Inc. [Id. at 11.] The Ingrams allege that the structural system recommended to them by LeeCor and Medlin was improper for the construction of their home and could not be installed so as to comply with applicable building codes. They also allege that Medlin made various other misrepresentations, such as advising then that a vapor barrier was unnecessary when, in fact, the opposite was true.
Following LeeCor and Medlin's motion to dismiss, the Ingrams' remaining claims are for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance, negligent construction; negligent provision of professional services; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; violations of building codes under KRS § 198B.130; and building professional liability under KRS § 411.256. See Ingram, 2017 WL 6508362, at *9-10.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 entitles any party to “amend its pleading once as a matter of course” before being served with a responsive pleading, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1), and in all other cases, allows a party to amend either “with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Id. at (a)(2). The Rule further states that “court[s] should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. In determining whether the interests of justice support a grant of leave to amend, courts consider several factors, including “undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the amendment.” Brumbalough v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 427 F.3d 996, 1001 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 341-42 (6th Cir. 1998)); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “The grant or denial of leave to amend is within the discretion of the trial court, and review is for abuse of discretion.” Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Kevin Tucker & Assocs., Inc., 64 F.3d 1001, 1008 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir.1983)).
In response, the Ingrams do not object to the filing of a joint answer in general or the majority of the proposed amendments Defendants wish to make therein. [DN 52 at 4.] The Ingrams do object to Defendants' proposed amendments to their responses to paragraph 49 and paragraph 149 of the Ingrams' complaint, however.

References: v. 
 § 198
 § 411
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.