Opinion ID: 3046497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Detrimental reliance and Leave to amend

Text: As the plaintiffs conceded, there is no such cause of action under Georgia law. Rather, the plaintiffs contend, this count should be considered as a claim for promissory estoppel. The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to address the detrimental-reliance claim or any other deficiencies. We repeatedly have held that plaintiffs cannot amend their complaint through a response to a motion to dismiss. Rosenberg v. Gould, 554 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 2009). In Rosenberg, we confirmed that a request for leave submitted in 16 Case: 14-11214 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 17 of 19 a footnote in a memo opposing a motion to dismiss was insufficient to require the court to grant leave to amend. We further noted that Rule 7(b) required the plaintiff to submit a copy of the proposed amendment or to describe the proposed amendment when requesting leave. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)). Thus, our precedent is clear: the proper method to request leave to amend is through filing a motion, and such motion for leave to amend should either set forth the substance of the proposed amendment or attach a copy of the proposed amendment. Long, 181 F.3d at 1279. In this case, the plaintiffs did not file a motion for leave to amend but instead included the request for leave to amend in the memorandum they filed in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Furthermore, they failed to attach the amendment or set forth the substance of the proposed amendment. Moreover, they could have — but did not — seek relief from judgment under 59(e), or 60(b)(6) in order to seek such leave. See DiMaio v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008) (discussing failure to seek leave under Rules 15, 59, or 60) (citing United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1361, 1362 n.22 (11th Cir. 2006). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 17 Case: 14-11214 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 18 of 19