Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Structural Preservation Systems, LLC v. Andrews

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 3, 2015

STRUCTURAL PRESERVATION SYSTEMS, LLC, et al. Plaintiffs
v.
JAMES L. ANDREWS, et al., Defendants

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.

The Court has before it Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [Document 136], and the materials submitted related thereto. The Court finds no need for a hearing.

I. BACKGROUND[1]

Plaintiff Structural Preservation Systems, LLC ("SPS"), based in Hanover, Maryland, is a specialty contractor that provides construction and engineering services in the commercial, government, industrial, energy, and transportation markets. Specifically, SPS performs floor tipping restoration and vault work. Plaintiff Structural Group, Inc. ("SGI"), based in Baltimore, Maryland, is the general manager of SPS. Defendants Sean Turner ("Turner"), Benjamin Ball ("Ball"), and James Andrews ("Andrews") (collectively, the "Defendants") are former employees of SPS. In the Amended Complaint [Document 49], filed April 1, 2013, Plaintiffs present claims in four Counts:

Count I Breach of Contract (All Defendants),
Count II Violation of Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act (All Defendants),
Count III Breach of Contract (Defendant Andrews), and
Count IV Declaratory Judgment (Defendant Andrews)

In the Memorandum and Order Re: Motions to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Document 71], the Court denied Defendants' motions for dismissal of all claims.

By the instant Motion, Plaintiffs proffer a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") that would add two Defendants and two Counts.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a court "should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when justice so requires." Despite this general rule liberally allowing amendments, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated that a district court should deny leave to amend "when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.'" Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)).

A. The Proposed Additional Defendants

Plaintiffs seek to add as Defendants, two ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.