Wharf, Inc. v. District of Columbia - 321 F.R.D. 25 (D.D.C. 2017)

Rule:

"When evaluating whether to grant leave to amend, the Court must consider (1) undue delay; (2) prejudice to the opposing party; (3) futility of the amendment; (4) bad faith; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." Howell v. Gray, 843 F. Supp. 2d 49, 54 (D.D.C. 2012) 

Facts:

Plaintiffs Wharf, Inc., ('The Wharf"), BRW, Inc. ("Captain White"), and Salt Water Seafood, Inc. ("Salt Water") (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") filed suit on July 23, 2015, against the District of Columbia ("the District"), Hoffman-Madison Waterfront, LLC ("HMW") and Wharf Horizontal Reit Leaseholder, LLC ("WHRL") (with HMW and WHRL are collectively referred to as the "Initial Developer Defendants").  Plaintiffs alleged that the Initial Developer Defendants violated the terms of the Plaintiffs' lease agreements, and further that the District violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by impeding access to the property leased by Plaintiffs at the Southwest Waterfront in the District of Columbia. On April 26, 2017, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which was consented to by the District, unopposed by the three Developer Defendants, and granted by the Court. On May 9, 2017, these New Developer Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is presently pending before this Court.

Issue:

Should the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted or should the Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend their complaint?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

 It is within this Court's discretion to permit the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint and, in the absence of any showing of undue delay, prejudice, futility or bad faith, the Court found no sufficient reason to deny the Plaintiffs' request to amend their Complaint. Furthermore, the Court notes that it is more efficient for Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint prior to the Court ruling on the instant Motion to Dismiss, because, in the event that the Court were inclined to grant that motion, Plaintiffs would inevitably move at a later date for leave to amend their Complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs should file their Third Amended Complaint by no later than August 4, 2017, and in so doing, they should include all relevant facts about the relationship of the New Developer Defendants to the Initial Developer Defendants and their involvement with the Waterfront development and the Fish Market.