Civil Procedure — amendment of pleadings — futility

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — amendment of pleadings — futility

Where a party could not state what he would allege that would result in the complaint sufficiently stating a claim, the district court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint.

“In support of its argument on appeal, the Receiver contends only that when its complaint was dismissed, it had filed only one complaint on behalf of InTrust. (It does not try to assign us the task of re-pleading for it, as it did the district court.) The Receiver offers no argument at all against futility, and it is well settled that a district court may refuse leave to amend where amendment would be futile. See Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008), citing Airborne Beepers, 499 F.3d at 666. Nothing the Receiver has brought forward so far, either in its complaint allegations, its arguments in favor of its motion to alter or amend, or its arguments on appeal, sufficiently supports its theory that Stewart knowingly and intentionally conspired with InTrust. Based on the Receiver’s own allegations, Stewart did not know of Hargrove’s and Capriotti’s InTrust malfeasance. Without knowledge of Hargrove’s and Capriotti’s activities and purpose, Stewart could not have conspired in their fraud. In the absence of any suggestion of how the Receiver might overcome these self-created hurdles if it were to replead, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Receiver that opportunity.”

Affirmed.

11-2108 Independent Trust Corp. v. Stewart Information Services Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Hamilton, J.