MIKE THOMAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FARMVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff filed an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was removed to federal court and dismissed for failure to state a claim. The plain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 59(E) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Mike Thomas, appellant, filed this action against Farmville Manufacturing Company, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, in the Superior Court, Crisp County, State of Georgia, on July 12, 1982. The case was removed by Farmville on August 11, 1982, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441. A motion to dismiss was filed at the same time as the removal petition. On August 27, 1982, the district court determined and held “that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint .should be sustained in that it appears that the Plaintiff’s complaint does not adequately set forth a cause of action to enable the Plaintiff to recover under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.”
On September 10, 1982, the plaintiff moved to vacate the order of dismissal and also requested leave to amend the complaint; to this motion plaintiff attached a proposed amendment. On October 1, 1982,’ the district court denied the motions to vacate the order of dismissal and to grant leave to amend the complaint.
The standard of review for a denial. of leave to amend, and for denial of a Rule 59(e) motion, is abuse of discretion. Stutts v. Freeman, 694 F. 2d 666, 669 (11th Cir.1983); Paschal v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 666 F. 2d 1381, 1384 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1109, 102 S.Ct. 2911, 73 L.Ed.2d 1319 (1982). A grant of leave to amend is particularly appropriate following dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, Griggs v. Hinds Junior College, 563 F. 2d 179, 180 (5th Cir.1977), and, in the absence. of a declared or apparent reason, an outright refusal to grant leave to amend is an abuse of discretion. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). The application of these principles to this case leads to the conclusion that the denial of leave to amend by the district court was an abuse of discretion.
The order dismissing the complaint is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions to allow the filing of an amended complaint.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Thomas v. Town OF Davie, 847 F.2d 771 (11th Cir. 1988)…iencies in the complaint and reversed the denial of the motion for reconsideration which sought leave to amend the complaint. Our standard of review at that posture of the case is abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Farmville Manufacturing Company, Inc., 705 F. 2d 1307 (11th Cir.1983). While I differ with the majority in this case, the result of the majority opinion as it relates to the plaintiff’s claim against the two officers is essentially correct. I arrive at that conclusion by a different route. In my view…
-
Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces OF Colombia, 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014)…oluntary appearance “waiv[ed] any potential defects founded on service or venue problems”). The Rule 59(e) motion does not save the appellants, either. We review denials of Rule 59(e) motions for an abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Farmville Mfg. Co., 705 F. 2d 1307, 1307 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam). The district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion based on a miscom-prehension of the law was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Merrill, 513 F. 3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir.2008). However, we affirm the deni…
-
Alpha W. Hargett, III v. Valley Fed. Sav. Bank, 60 F.3d 754 (11th Cir. 1995)…grant a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jones v. Childers, 18 F. 3d 899 (11th Cir.1994); Lockett v. General Fin. Loan Co. of Downtown, 623 F. 2d 1128 (5th Cir.1980); Thomas v. Farmville Mfg. Co., Inc., 705 F. 2d 1307 (11th Cir.1983). IV. DISCUSSION A. TIMELINESS OF THE “LAY OFF” CLAIM Hargett first alleges that Judge Blackburn erred when she granted summary judgment in favor of Valley on the basis that Hargett’s age discrimination suit was not timely filed wi…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962)
- Hardy L. Paschal v. Fla. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n, 666 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Griggs v. Hinds Junior Coll., 563 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Lebedun v. Young, 457 U.S. 1109 (U.S. 1982)
- Clayton v. Douglas, 457 U.S. 1109 (U.S. 1982)
- Stutts v. Freeman, 694 F.2d 666 (11th Cir. 1983)