Cantium, LLC v. Walker Marine Geophysical Company, LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CANTIUM, LLC
VERSUS
WALKER MARINE GEOPHYSICAL
COMPANY, LLC ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-552
SECTION "B" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff, Cantium, LLC (“Cantium”), filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended
and Restated Complaint (R. Doc. 59). Defendant GTC, Inc. and Counter Defendant
Walker Marine Geophysical Company, LLC have filed responses.1 The responses do
not oppose amendment, but rather request that amendment not delay consideration
of the motions pending before the District Court. Having considered the submissions
of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants Cantium’s motion for
leave to amend. To the extent that Defendants maintain amendment does not affect
the pending motions, they must raise that position with the District Court via a
separate submission.
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
passed after service of a 12(b) motion and no scheduling order has been entered, then
1 R. Docs. 60, 61.
Case 2:25-cv-00552-ILRL-EJD Document 63 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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.”2
The language of Rule 15(a)(2) “evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to
amend.”3 The Fifth Circuit has instructed that the “district court must possess a
‘substantial reason’ to deny a request for leave to amend.”4 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.”5 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.”6 Denial of leave to
amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion.7 “[A]bsent a ‘substantial reason’ such as
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failures to cure deficiencies, or
undue prejudice to the opposing party, ‘the discretion of the district court is not broad
enough to permit denial.’”8 Here, each of the relevant factors weighs in favor of
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
3 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).
4 Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004).
5 	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)).
6 Schiller, 342 F.3d at 566.
7 Mayeaux, 376 F.3d at 425.
8 Id. (quoting Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United
Case 2:25-cv-00552-ILRL-EJD Document 63 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
amendment. Insofar as Defendants are concerned about the relationship between
amendment and the disposition of pending motions, Defendants must seek relief from
the District Court.
III. 	Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend (R. Doc. 59) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Amended and Restated Complaint and attached exhibits (R. Docs. 59-3–
59-6) shall be filed in the record.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of March, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
States of Am. Co., 195 F.3d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1999)).
Case 2:25-cv-00552-ILRL-EJD Document 63 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3