Trupia v. Onvoy LLC et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTHONY TRUPIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ONVOY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-1134-D
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Notice of Amendment as a Matter of Course and
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Extension of Time” [Doc.
No. 31].
Plaintiff first notifies the Court of his intent to amend his Complaint as a matter of
course, pursuant to F ED. R. C IV. P. 15(a)(1)(B). First, the Court finds that Plaintiff may
amend as a matter of course as to Defendants Telnyx LLC, Confidence Ford of Norman,
Ford Motor Company, and LP Operating, as Plaintiff’s notice and proposed First Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 31-1] was filed within 21 days of those defendants’ motions to
dismiss. The Court further notes that Defendants LP Operating LLC, Reagan Gold Group,
LLC, HLV Ventures, LLC, South Bay Galleries LLC, Heritage Hard Assets LLC, and Kyle
Patton do not oppose Plaintiff amending his complaint [Doc. Nos. 40, 43, 44].
Remaining defendants, Onvoy, LLC and Level 3 Communications LLC, oppose
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint.1 See Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d
1 It does not appear that Defendant World Harvest Church, Inc. has been served in this action.
Case 5:25-cv-01134-D Document 47 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993) (“Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a
showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive,
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.”).
Onvoy, LLC notified the Court that it will fully brief the futility issue “by moving
to dismiss under F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b) should the Court allow Plaintiff to amend his
complaint. [Doc. No. 38, at 1]. And, although Level 3 Communications LLC argues that
amendment would be futile, Level 3 Communications LLC may similarly address the
issues with Plaintiff’s amended complaint by seeking dismissal under Rule 12. See
Corebank v. ABA Ins. Servs., Inc., No. CIV-25-209-J, Doc. No. 29, at *2 (“[T]he court finds
that Defendant’s futility arguments would be more properly addressed in the context of
dispositive motions rather than the motion to amend.”); see also Complete Merch. Sols.,
LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, No. 2:19-cv-963-HCN-DAO, 2020 WL 4192294, at *3 (D.
Utah July 21, 2020) (“[I]t is within the court’s discretion to decline to engage in a futility
analysis in the context of a motion to amend if the court determines the futility arguments
would be more properly addressed in dispositive motions.”).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint
would be proper “as a matter of course” as to Defendants Telnyx LLC, Confidence Ford of
Norman, Ford Motor Company, and LP Operating. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The
Court further finds that justice requires that Plaintiff have an opportunity to amend his
complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) against the remaining defendants, most of which do not
object to an amended complaint.
Case 5:25-cv-01134-D Document 47 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s “Notice of Amendment as a Matter of Course and
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Extension of Time” [Doc.
No. 31] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within 14 days of this Order. If Plaintiff
fails to file his amended complaint within 14 days of this Order, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice, without further notice to Plaintiff.
Given this ruling, Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 7, 9, 11, 12, 21, 27,
30, and 35] are DENIED as MOOT. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to ECF/E-File
[Doc. No. 3] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22 nd day of April, 2026.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01134-D Document 47 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 3