Court Opinion

ID: 9409490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 15:01:19.779869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:50.876566
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12540    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 07/18/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12540
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       OCEAN FRONT APARTMENTS, INC.,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 4:19-cv-10128-JLK
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12540     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 07/18/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12540

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Ocean Front Apartments, Inc. brought a single-claim com-
       plaint against Wright National Flood Insurance Company for an
       insurance adjustment on a building damaged by Hurricane Irma.
       Fifteen months later, Ocean Front moved to amend its complaint
       to add a second claim for another building damaged by the storm.
       The district court denied Ocean Front’s motion to amend as un-
       timely—and reaffirmed that reasoning in response to Ocean
       Front’s motion for reconsideration. Ocean Front appeals those de-
       cisions. We affirm.
              We review a denial of leave to amend for abuse of discre-
       tion. Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1270 (11th Cir.
       2006). Amendments made more than 21 days after service of the
       original pleading require the court’s leave, which “should be freely
       give[n] . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
       When ruling on leave to amend, a district court may consider five
       factors: “(1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) re-
       peated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue preju-
       dice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amend-
       ment, and (5) futility.” Blackburn v. Shire US Inc., 18 F.4th 1310,
       1317–18 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
       (1962)).
             The district court here found Ocean Front’s motion un-
       timely because it “sought leave to amend over fifteen months after
USCA11 Case: 22-12540     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 07/18/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       22-12540              Opinion of the Court                        3

       the Complaint was filed.” That undue delay, it held, warranted
       denying leave to amend.
                 Ocean Front spends much of its briefing on appeal arguing
       that Wright was not prejudiced by the delayed amendment, or that
       timeliness isn’t a concern because the amendment relates back to
       the initial complaint. There are numerous problems with both ar-
       guments, but we need not get into them. Prejudice and relation
       back are irrelevant to the analysis here. “A district court need not
       . . . allow an amendment where there has been undue delay.” Bry-
       ant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). The district
       court was within its discretion to conclude that Ocean Front’s de-
       lay in filing to amend was unduly delayed. Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.