Opinion ID: 3011243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Leave of Amend Complaint

Text: Our final inquiry is whether the District Court should have allowed the Lakes' motion to amend their complaint a second time following remand in Lake I. We review the District Court's decision to deny the Lakes' r equest to amend for abuse of discretion. See In r e Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F .3d 1406, 1413-14 (3d Cir. 1993)). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur e, a plaintiff is entitled to amend her claim once; courts may grant subsequent amendments when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). While this Rule also r equires that leave to amend should be freely given, a district court has the discretion to deny this request if it is apparent from the 19 record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would pr ejudice the other party. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). While a District Court has substantial leeway in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, when it refuses this type of request without justifying its decision, this action is not an exercise of its discretion but an abuse of its discretion. Id. As the Lakes note, the District Court's October 1998 order offered no explanation for denying their request, even though the Lakes filed their request for leave to amend on April 1, 1998. At that time, the Lakes alleged that they had additional facts that would enable them to withstand the defendants' motion to dismiss. As we learned at argument, however, the Lakes did not supply the District Court with a draft amended complaint, even though they had several months between the time that the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation (filed March 10, 1998) and when the District Court issued its order (filed October 30, 1998) during which to draft one. Instead, the Lakes chose to wait until the District Court issued its or der. Despite their delay, the Lakes now urge us to reverse the District Court's decision as an abuse of its discr etion because the District Court's order failed to explain why it denied their request to amend. Not providing a justification for a denial of leave to amend, however, does not automatically constitute an abuse of discretion as long as the court's rationale is readily apparent from the record on appeal. See 3 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice S 15.14[2] at 15-32 (3d ed. 1999), citing Pallotino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994) (noting that court failed to provide expr ess reason for denial but only harmless error when appar ent from record). Moreover, some District Court local rules in our Circuit require that a plaintiff give a District Court a draft amended complaint so that it can review the proposed changes to determine whether justice requir es the court to grant plaintiff's request. See Cindrich, et al., 1 Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial--3d Circuit 8:285 (1996) (discussing Local Rule 12(h) for District Court of New Jersey). 20 Obviously, without this draft complaint, the District Court cannot evaluate the merits of a plaintiffs' r equest. Here, as we stated above, the plaintiff failed to give the District Court a draft complaint to review. Thus, the court had nothing upon which to exercise its discr etion. Consequently, the District Court's lack of findings or justification do not make its denial of leave to amend improper, although such a statement would have made our review more straightforward. See Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 155 F.3d 644, 655 (3d Cir. 1998) (upholding District Court's denial of leave to amend despite absence of specific factual findings justifying denial); Kelly v. Del. River Joint Comm'n, 187 F.2d 93, 95 (3d Cir. 1950) (affirming lower court's summary refusal to permit amendment to a claim given plaintiff's failur e to provide court with a proposed amended complaint). We conclude that the Lakes' failure to provide a draft amended complaint would be an adequate basis on which the court could deny the plaintiff's r equest. See Rolo, 155 F.3d at 655; accord Harris v. City of Auburn, 27 F.3d 1284, 1987 (7th Cir. 1994) (noting that the failur e to provide a proposed amended complaint demonstrates lack of diligence or bad faith). Moreover, we ar e inclined to give the District Court even broader discretion when, as here, the court has already granted the requesting party an opportunity to amend its complaint. See, e.g., DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F .2d 183, 186 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987).