Century Surety Company v. Shahrouj et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-00178-TFM-N
)
MONTASER SHAHROUJ and 	)
STEPHEN LAWRENCE WRIGHT, 	)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
This civil action is before the Court on the “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2) filed July 18, 2025 (Doc# 20). The assigned District Judge has
referred said motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate action
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR
72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (7/28/2025 electronic reference notation).
When, as here, the time to amend a pleading once as a matter of course under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) has expired, and a party seeking to amend
has not obtained “the opposing party’s written consent[,]” “a party may amend its
pleading only with…the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice
so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). No opposition to the present motion was filed by
the August 15, 2025 deadline for responses to said motion (see Doc# 21), and the
undersigned finds no apparent grounds to deny said motion sua sponte. See Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962) (“Rule 15(a) declares
that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires'; this mandate is
Case 1:25-cv-00178-TFM-N Doc# 22 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

to be heeded…In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave
sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’ ”).
Accordingly, 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	“Motion 	for 	Leave 	to 	File 	Second 	Amended
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” filed July 18, 2025 (Doc# 20) is GRANTED.
The Plaintiff must file the proposed second amended complaint attached to said
motion as a stand-alone pleading, and serve it on all parties required to be served
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, no later than AUGUST 25, 2025. Unless
and until the second amended complaint is so filed, the First Amended Complaint
(Doc# 5) shall remain the operative complaint in this action.
Upon its timely filing, the defendants shall serve their answers to the Second
Amended Complaint within the time set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3)
(“Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading
must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within
14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.”).
DONE and ORDERED this the 20th day of August 2025.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00178-TFM-N Doc# 22 Filed 08/20/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>