Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2013-02-14-01
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA   IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
     
COUNTY OF RICHLAND   

FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

     
     
  )  
  )  
THE STATE TREASURER OF  ) Civil Action No. 2011-CP-40-00533
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,   )  
Plaintiff, )  
  )  
  )  
  )

 

vs.  ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
  )

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON )  

CORPORATION and THE BANK OF

)  
NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a THE )  
BANK OF NEW YORK,  )  
Defendants. )  
  )  

   

This matter came before the Court on January 23, 2012 upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) S.C.R.C.P  The Treasurer is represented by Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Mr. Mitchell Willoughby and Ms. Elizabeth Zeck of Willoughby & Hoefer, P.A. and Mr. Michael H. Montgomery of Montgomery Willard, L.L.C.  The Bank is represented by Mr. Marshall Winn, Mr. Wallace K. Lightsey, Mr. Theodore Gentry and Mr. John C. Moylan, III of Wyche, P.A. and Mr. Damien Marshall of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP of New York, New York, appearing pro hac vice. 

The Court notes that South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) requires that leave to amend a complaint “be freely given if justice so requires….”  Our Courts have interpreted this rule liberally.  “Leave to amend pleadings pursuant to Rule 15 SCRCP, shall be liberally and freely given when justice so requires and does not prejudice any other party.”  Crestwood Golf Club, Inc. v. Potter, 328 S.C. 201, 493 S.E.2d 826 (1997); Pruitt v. Bowers, 330 S.C. 483, 499 S.E.2d 250 (S.C. App. 1998).  “This rule strongly favors amendments and the Court is encouraged to freely grant leave to amend.”  Jarrell v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., 294 S.C. 183, 363 S.E.2d 398 (S.C. App. 1987).

The Defendants have not argued against the amendment by the Treasurer, other than alleging that the Court should dismiss the Treasurer with Prejudice in their Motion to Dismiss which was heard during the hearing.

The Court finds that no prejudice will inure against the Defendants and that justice requires the Court allowing the proposed amendment, which does nothing but add the Attorney General of the State, who has already appeared as counsel in this matter, as an additional party Plaintiff.  The Treasurer’s Motion to Amend is granted. 

Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1)  That the Treasurer’s Motion to Amend his Complaint is Granted.

(2)  That the Treasurer shall file his Amended Complaint within ten days of the date of notice of this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED:

__________________________
Clifton B. Newman
Circuit Court Judge

February 14, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina