UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF EL PASO J.A.G., INC. F/K/A EL PASO J.A.G., INC. v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE
AND BENEFIT OF EL PASO J.A.G., INC. F/K/A
EL PASO J.A.G., INC.,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01220-JPH-MJD
)
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF
MARYLAND, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 44.] Defendants object to the motion. The Court, being duly
advised, GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below.
When, as here, leave to amend a complaint is sought prior to the applicable deadline,
leave should be freely given "when justice so requires." Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)
"favors amendment as a general matter." Knowlton v. City of Wauwatosa, 119 F.4th 507, 519
(7th Cir. 2024) (citing Allen v. Brown Advisory, LLC, 41 F.4th 843, 853 (7th Cir. 2022) (in turn
citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Nevertheless, "leave may be denied on
account of undue delay, prejudice, bad faith or dilatory motives, futility, or judicial economy."
Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 94 F.4th 588, 607 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing
Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Municipal Airport Comm'n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir.
2004)).
Case 1:25-cv-01220-JPH-MJD Document 50 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Despite this liberal standard, Defendants argue vigorously that Plaintiff's motion to
amend should be denied because it is futile. An amendment is futile if it would not withstand a
motion to dismiss. Defendants did not move to dismiss the original Complaint. Defendants do
not explain how the additional facts contained in the Proposed Amended Complaint would
render Plaintiff's claims futile, and it is not readily apparent to the Court. Plaintiff is entitled to
amend its complaint to add those additional facts. In addition, the Proposed Amended Complaint
clarifies that Plaintiff is seeking to retain the $29,389.20 payment it has received from
Defendants and recover an additional $178,137.88, whereas the original Complaint simply
sought a judgment of $207,527.08, which is the sum of those two amounts. 	Thus, despite
Defendants' argument to the contrary, the Proposed Amended Complaint does, in fact, serve to
clarify Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff's motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its Amended Complaint, in
substantially the same form as that found at Docket Number 44-1, within three business days of
the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 29 DEC 2025
Distribution:
Service will be made electronically on all
ECF-registered counsel of record via email
generated by the Court's ECF system.
Case 1:25-cv-01220-JPH-MJD Document 50 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>