Opinion ID: 1463027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Stephensons' Motion to Amend

Text: Finally, the Stephensons challenge the district court's denial of their motion to amend their complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as in effect at the time of the court's order, provided that [a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.... Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Id. We review the determination of a district court to deny a party leave to amend the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) for abuse of discretion. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Carp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir.2007). Here, at the time of the Stephensons' motion, the defendants had not filed an answer to their complaint. Stephenson, 220 F.R.D. at 24. Accordingly, the Stephensons were entitled to amend their complaint as a matter of right without leave of the district court, because a motion is not a responsive pleading, 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1483, at 584 (2d ed.1990); see id. at 586 (Nor does a summary judgment motion made before responding [to plaintiff s complaint] have any effect on a party's ability to amend under the first sentence of Rule 15(a).); accord, e.g., Zaidi v. Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1219-20 (5th Cir. 1984); Miller v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc., 313 F.2d 218, 218-19 n. 1 (2d Cir.1963). Because the defendants had not filed a responsive pleading when the Stephensons sought to amend their complaint, the district court erred in denying the amendment. We conclude, however, that in light of our finding regarding the government contractor defense, the district court's erroneous denial of the Stephensons' motion was harmless. Repleading could not avoid the application of the government contractor defense and, therefore, remand to permit the amendment would be futile. See Sinicropi v. Nassau County, 601 F.2d 60, 62 (2d Cir.1979) (concluding that even if district court had erred in denying motion to amend, any error would be harmless because the proposed amendment would have been barred by res judicata ), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 488, 62 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979); cf. Unlaub Co., Inc. v. Sexton, 568 F.2d 72, 78 (8th Cir. 1977) (concluding any abuse of discretion by district court in failing to permit defendant to amend his answer was harmless because [n]one of the matters set forth in the proposed amended answer would affect the result).