Court filing
RESPONSE in Opposition re 89 MOTION to Amend/Correct 21 Amended Complaint (proposed… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 92)
Summary
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-05425, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, dated September 2, 2020. Truist Bank, ServisFirst Bank and The First, A National Banking Association oppose the plaintiff's motion filed as D.E. 89 and adopt the arguments in Synovus's opposition at D.E. 91. They argue the proposed Second Amended Complaint would be futile, quoting the plaintiff's own statements that the court would likely dismiss it again, and cite In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2014). In the alternative, they ask for the chance to move to dismiss any Second Amended Complaint first. The filing includes a Local Rule 7.1(F) certification of 502 words and a certificate of service, and is Dkt. 92.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
:
SPORT & WHEAT CPA PA, a Florida :
corporation, individually and on behalf of :
Case No. 3:20-cv-05425-
a class of similarly situated businesses and :
TKW-HTC
individuals, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
:
v. :
:
SERVISFIRST BANK INC.; SYNOVUS :
BANK; THE FIRST, A NATIONAL :
BANKING ASSOCIATION; and :
TRUIST BANK, :
:
Defendants. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
Truist Bank (“Truist”), ServisFirst Bank (“ServisFirst”), and The First, A
National Banking Association (“The First”) (collectively, the “Defendants”)
submit 1 this Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint,
which was filed on August 31. See D.E. 89.
1
The Defendants also incorporate herein by reference those arguments made by
Synovus in its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Further Amend
Complaint (D.E. 91).
1
Plaintiff seeks to change the record by amending contentions and adding
additional evidence in a Second Amended Complaint, yet willingly accepts this
Court’s ruling of dismissal of the prior First Amended Complaint.
Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request
because it is futile, as Plaintiff itself admits. D.E. 89 at 1 (“accept[ing] the ruling
of the Court [dismissing its Amended Complaint]” and conceding that “this
proposed Second Amended Complaint may be subject to dismissal again”); id. at
3-4 (conceding that “the core legal issues have already been briefed once, and
[Plaintiff] is under no illusion that the Court will reverse itself on those matters”);
id. at 4 (“Because nothing is being significantly changed here, [Plaintiff] expects
that the Court would likely dismiss this complaint again.”). “[A] motion for leave
to amend may appropriately be denied . . . where amendment would be futile.” In
re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1109 (11th Cir. 2014). Indeed, the Eleventh
Circuit routinely upholds district court denials of plaintiffs’ motions to amend
complaints where such amendments are futile. See, e.g., Johnson v. Ga. Dept. of
Veterans Serv., 791 F. App’x 113, 116 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming the district
court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend where the amendment
would be futile); Broughton v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 571 F. App’x 891, 892 (11th Cir.
2014) (affirming the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and denial
of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint where plaintiff conceded in
2
that his prior complaint was “rendered futile” by precedent); Patel v. Ga. Dept.
BHDD, 485 F. App’x 982, 983 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming the district court’s order
granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying the plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend where the amendment would be futile); Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co.
of Am. v. Reznick Grp., P.C., 271 F. App’x 833, 836 (11th Cir. 2008) (same); Hall
v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004) (same).
Because Plaintiff admits that its proposed amendment is futile—and because
such amendment is, in fact, futile—Defendants respectfully request that this Court
deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. If the Court grants
Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants request that the Court give them the opportunity to
move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and require Plaintiff to respond
to those motions before dismissing the Second Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of September 2020.
/s/ Cheryl L. Haas /s/ Logan T. Matthews
Cheryl L. Haas (Admitted Pro Hac Logan T. Matthews
Vice) Florida Bar No. 1002506
Georgia Bar No. 316081 LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE,
chaas@mcguirewoods.com LLC
M. Laughlin Allen (Admitted Pro Hac The Clark Building
Vice) 400 20th Street North
Georgia Bar No. 901999 Birmingham, Alabama 35203
mlallen@mcguirewoods.com Telephone: (205) 581-0700
MCGUIREWOODS LLP Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 2100 One of the Attorneys for Defendant
Atlanta, GA 30309-3534 ServisFirst Bank
T: (404) 443-5500
F: (404) 443-5599 OF COUNSEL:
3
Sara Anne Ford (admitted pro hac vice)
Kathryn M. Barber (Admitted Pro Hac sford@lightfootlaw.com
Vice) R. Ashby Pate (admitted pro hac vice)
Virginia Bar No. 88992 apate@lightfootlaw.com
kbarber@mcguirewoods.com Logan T. Matthews (Florida Bar No.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1002506)
Gateway Plaza lmatthews@lightfootlaw.com
800 East Canal Street LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE,
Richmond, VA 23219-3916 LLC
T: (804) 775-1227 The Clark Building
F: (804) 698-2227 400 20th Street North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Emily Y. Rottmann Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Florida Bar No. 93154 Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
erottman@mcguirewoods.com Counsel for Defendant ServisFirst Bank
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
50 N Laura Street, Suite 3300
Jacksonville, FL 32202
T: (904) 798-3200 /s/Christopher A. Riley
F: (904) 798-3207 CHRISTOPHER A. RILEY
Attorneys for Truist Bank Florida Bar No. 0168165
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-4790
Chris.riley@alston.com
Counsel for Defendant The First, A
National Banking Association
4
LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) WORD LIMIT CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Northern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(F), I certify that this
Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Amend The Complaint is in
compliance with the Court’s word limit. According to the word processing
program used to prepare this motion and memorandum, the document contains 502
words.
/s/ Cheryl L. Haas
Cheryl L. Haas (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 316081
chaas@mcguirewoods.com
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30309-3534
T: (404) 443-5500
F: (404) 443-5599
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send email
notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
/s/ Cheryl L. Haas
Cheryl L. Haas
134839415_1
5
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.92.0.pdf
- Size
- 192,720 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6c16bfd2b9fa52cb52a07a7f40bc786c694ef3e3698e390ac0437293495e6f80
- Original
- No public link identified.