DeLoach v. Woodley
| Decision Date | 22 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26330.,26330. |
| Citation | 405 F.2d 496 |
| Parties | Katherine DeLOACH, Appellant, v. Ralph E. WOODLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Herbert Lord, Winchester, Mass., for appellant.
William J. Gillespie, Gillespie & McClendon, Lubbock, Tex., for appellee.
Before GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and LIEB, District Judge.
The jurisdictional derivative of this action is 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 which requires that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $10,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. We have ferreted the complaint for allegations supporting the jurisdictional amount and could find only the following: "The estimated sum which the plaintiff alleges the defendant owes her for the eleven (11) years support of her daughter, Kathryne, is Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Dollars ($7,860.00) with interest." The fatal vulnerability of this allegation is obvious and dismissal was therefore properly decreed. Wood v. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering System Company Ltd., et al., 5 Cir. 1968, 409 F.2d 367 (December 4, 1968).
Appellant complains that a motion was made in the district court to amend her complaint and that leave to amend was denied. However, appellant's proposed amendment alleged no new jurisdictional facts. As such her amended complaint would have been subject to dismissal for the same reasons as her original complaint. The liberal amendment rules of F.R.Civ.P. 15(a) do not require that courts indulge in futile gestures. Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted. Foman v. Davis, 1962, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed. 222, 226.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bar Grp., LLC v. Bus. Intelligence Advisors, Inc.
...#18 at p.1. "Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted." DeLoach v. Woodley , 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir. 1968), citing Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Since the Court denies additional discovery, the ......
-
Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp., Civ. A. No. 79-2623.
...gestures. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. at 230, Dell v. Heard, 532 F.2d 1330, 1334 (10th Cir. 1976), DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968), Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. v. North America, 595 F.2d at 130 n. 1, Pendleton v. Trans Union System......
-
Bradley v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
...proposed amendment would be futile. See Pan— Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 632 F.2d 539, 546 (5th Cir.1980) (citing DeLoach Woodley, 405 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1969)); Byrne v. Kysar, 347 F.2d 734 (7th Cir.1965) ("Clearly, if a complaint as amended is subject to dismissal, leave to amend ......
-
Henneberry v. Sumitomo Corp. of America
...the complaint, as amended, could not withstand a motion to dismiss, a motion to amend need not be granted." (citing De-Loach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968))), the Court will review the amended complaint through the prism of a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis and, consequently, accept as......
-
Motions
...Amendments The liberal amendment rules of Rule 15, F.R.C.P. “do not require that Courts indulge in futile gestures.” DeLoach v. Woodley , 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir. 1968) (“Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted.”). Accord, Williams......
-
Table of Cases
...321 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003), Form 1-08 Delhomme v. Caremark Rx, Inc. , 232 F.R.D. 573 (N.D.Tex. 2005), §7:79 DeLoach v. Woodley , 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir. 1968), Form 7-22 Delta Airlines v. August , 450 U.S. 346 (1981), §9:10 Denver v. Denver Tramway Corp ., 187 F.2d 410 (10th C......