Motion for Leave to Amend in Ohio

What Is a Motion for Leave to Amend?

Background

Pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 15, “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-eight days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required within twenty-eight days after service of a responsive pleading.” Otherwise, Civ.R. 15 mandates that “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and “[t]he court shall freely give leave when justice so requires.” (Gore v. Mohamod, 2022 Ohio 2227, 7 [Ohio Ct. App. 2022] quoting Civil Rule 15(A) [“[t]he court shall freely give leave [to amend ] when justice so requires.])

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Raising an Affirmative Defense in Amended Pleading

“[A] party may appropriately raise an affirmative defense in an amended pleading. Civ. R. 15(A) states that leave of court shall be ‘freely given’ as justice requires. Although the grant or denial of such leave is within the sound discretion of the trial court, where the defense is tendered timely and in good faith, and no reason is apparent or disclosed for denying leave, the denial of leave to file such an amended pleading or the subsequent striking of a defense from an amended pleading is an abuse of discretion.” (Hoover v. Sumlin (1984) 12 Ohio St. 3d 1, 5-6 citing Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 175.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“[T]he decision whether to grant a motion for leave to amend a pleading under Civ. R. 15(A) is within the discretion of the trial court. However, the language of Civ. R. 15(A) favors a liberal amendment policy and a motion for leave to amend should be granted absent a finding of bad faith, undue delay or undue prejudice to the opposing party.” (Hoover v. Sumlin (1984) 12 Ohio St. 3d 1, 6 citing Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp. [C.A. 6, 1983], 705 F.2d 134, 154.) “In adopting this rule, we follow the direction of ‘innumerable’ cases interpreting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. (Hoover. id., citing 6 Wright Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, at 417, Section 1484.)

The Court’s Decision

“The spirit of the Civil Rules is the resolution of cases upon their merits, not upon pleading deficiencies. Civ. R. 1(B) requires that the Civil Rules shall be applied ‘to effect just results.’ Pleadings are simply an end to that objective. The mandate of Civ. R. 15(A) as to amendments requiring leave of court, is that leave ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’ Although the grant or denial of leave to amend a pleading is discretionary, where it is possible that the plaintiff, by an amended complaint, may set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it is tendered timely and in good faith and no reason is apparent or disclosed for denying leave, the denial of leave to file such amended complaint is an abuse of discretion.” (Peterson v. Teodosio (1973) 34 Ohio St. 2d 161, 175 [“observ[ing] no good reason why leave should have been denied in this case, and therefore hold[ing] that the overruling of the motion for leave to amend constituted prejudicial error.”])

“[A] plaintiff must move to amend under Civ.R. 15(A) in a timely manner.”However, ‘[a]n attempt to amend a complaint following the filing of a motion for summary judgment raises the spectre of prejudice.’ Therefore, ‘plaintiffs should not be permitted to sit by for this period and bolster up their pleadings in answer to a motion for summary judgment.’” (Brown v. Firstenergy Corp. (2005) 159 Ohio App. 3d 696, 700 [denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend because it was filed almost three years after the original complaint and after dispositive motions had been filed.][internal citations omitted].)

Documents for Motion for Leave to Amend in Ohio

Sort By

08-CV-0802

4 pages

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CASE NO. 08-CV-0802 Plaintiff JUDGE MARK K, WIEST MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS AND JOIN THIRD- PARTY DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) v. ) ) QUERIDA D. WHEELER, et al. ) ) Defendants ) Defendant Querida D. Wheeler (hereafter “Defendant”) hereby requests, pursuant to Rules 13, 14, 15 and 19 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and the Order of this Court journalized on April 22, 2009, leave to join as Third-Party Defendants …

Case Name 08-CV-0802 - THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON vs. WHEELER, QUERIDA D