Opinion ID: 2167196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Tomran's Motion to Amend

Text: Tomran also contends that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in denying Tomran's motion to amend the first amended complaint to add the Bank of New York as an additional plaintiff and make further allegations regarding fraud on the minority after the Circuit Court entered its judgment. We have previously stated that an abuse of discretion will be found `where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court[]' ... or when the court acts `without reference to any guiding principles,' and the ruling under consideration is `clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court[]' . . . or when the ruling is `violative of fact and logic.' Beyond Systems, 388 Md. at 29, 878 A.2d at 583-84, quoting Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 198, 867 A.2d 1077, 1084 (2005), quoting in turn In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598, 347 Md. 295, 312-13, 701 A.2d 110, 118-19 (1997) (citations omitted). We do not find that the trial court's decision in the present case is beyond the determination that a reasonable person would make in light of the fact that additional facts concerning fraud on the minority would not cure Tomran's inability to maintain a derivative action. Therefore, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tomran's motion to amend the first amended complaint.