Malaco, Inc. v. Norman et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MALACO, INC.
VERSUS
DION NORMAN ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-266
SECTION "O" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, Malaco, Inc., filed a Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint.1 No opposition has been filed, and the deadline to do so
has expired. Having considered the submissions of counsel, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court grants the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
On February 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Dion Norman and
Derrick Ordogne.2 On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint.3
On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to amend its
First Amended Complaint to include additional details relative to the existing
claims.4 No scheduling order has been entered, and there is no trial date.
Under Rule 15(a)(1), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
no later than 21 days after serving it, or “if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b).” Under Rule 15(a)(2), if more than 21 days have
1 R. Doc. 15.
2 R. Doc. 1.
3 R. Doc. 8.
4 R. Doc. 15, ¶ 1.
Case 2:25-cv-00266-ASJ-EJD Document 17 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
passed after service of a 12(b) motion and no scheduling order has been entered, then
the party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or
the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”5
The language of Rule 15(a)(2) “evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to
amend.”6 The Fifth Circuit has instructed that the “district court must possess a
‘substantial reason’ to deny a request for leave to amend.”7 Although leave to amend
is to be freely given under Rule 15(a)(2), “that generous standard is tempered by the
necessary power of a district court to manage a case.”8 Factors relevant to the
consideration of a motion for leave under Rule 15(a) include “undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment.”9 Denial of leave to
amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion.10 “[A]bsent a ‘substantial reason’ such as
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, or
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
6 Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L.L. Co., 690 F.2d 1157, 1163 (5th Cir.
1982); see also Mayeaux v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 425
(5th Cir. 2004).
7 Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004).
8 Yumilicious Franchise, LLC v. Barrie, 819 F.3d 170, 177 (5th Cir.
2016) (quoting Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir.
2003)).
9 Schiller, 342 F.3d at 566.
10 Mayeaux, 376 F.3d at 425.
Case 2:25-cv-00266-ASJ-EJD Document 17 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
undue prejudice to the opposing party, ‘the discretion of the district court is not broad
enough to permit denial.’”11
Each of the relevant factors weighs in favor of amendment. The parties are in
the early stages of litigation. No trial date has been set, and the proposed pleading
does not add any new parties. Further, there is no indication that amendment would
be unduly prejudicial. And futility is not at issue.
. oncl usion
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (R. Doc. 15) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
proposed Second Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 15-3) shall be filed in the record.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5 th day of January, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11 Id. (quoting Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United
States of Am. Co., 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999)).
Case 2:25-cv-00266-ASJ-EJD Document 17 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3