Opinion ID: 780078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Missouri Merchandising Practices Act Amendment

Text: 22 Count II of the complaint contained allegations that Consumers Club violated the Indiana Franchise Acts. The franchise agreement provided Indiana law governed, but specifically provided this choice of law shall not be construed to render the Indiana Franchise Disclosure Law ... or the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Act ... applicable to this Agreement. Consumers Club moved to dismiss because the Indiana Franchise Acts did not apply. Meehan conceded the Indiana Franchise Acts did not apply and, in his response brief, sought to amend the complaint to substitute a claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The district court denied leave to amend. The district court ruled Meehan failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), because he failed to file a motion to amend and Meehan also failed to submit a proposed amended complaint. 23 Although Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend `shall be freely given when justice so requires,' there is no absolute or automatic right to amend one's complaint. Deutsche Fin. Servs. Corp. v. BCS Ins. Co., 299 F.3d 692, 700 (8th Cir. 2002). We review the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Knapp v. Hanson, 183 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir.1999). A district court does not abuse its discretion in failing to invite an amended complaint when plaintiff has not moved to amend and submitted a proposed amended pleading. Carlson v. Hyundai Motor Co., 164 F.3d 1160, 1162 (8th Cir.1999); see also Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir.1985) (finding no abuse of discretion where plaintiff merely sought leave to amend at the conclusion of her response to the motion to dismiss and saying, in order to preserve the right to amend the complaint, a party must submit the proposed amendment along with its motion.). All civil litigants are required to follow applicable procedural rules. See Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 333 (8th Cir. 2001). 24 First, Meehan did not move to amend. Second, Meehan failed to specify the proposed new allegations, and the district court was not required to engage in a guessing game. See Brandt v. Davis, 191 F.3d 887, 893 (8th Cir.1999) (finding no abuse of discretion where party failed to explain how he would amend the complaint to save the claim). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 25 Finally, Meehan argues an amendment to include a claim under Missouri law should be allowed and such claim would not be futile. Because the parties agreed in the franchise agreement to the application of Indiana law, the district court noted such an amendment may be futile. Although Meehan disputes the futility of the amendment, he does not show, or even argue, the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend given the procedural failures. We decline to evaluate the futility of the amendment because the district court's decision was procedural and was not an abuse of discretion.