ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 18 9:05 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2014CP2304432

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF GREENVILLE CASE NO. 2014-CP-23-04432

Richard A. Gorman,

Plaintiff,
vs. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

John C. Monarch; Direct Outbound

Services, LLC,

Defendants.

YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff moves before this court pursuant

to Rules 15 and 21, SCRCP, as well as pursuant to all other applicable law, for an order granting

him leave to amend his complaint to add claims and add defendants in the above-captioned action.

The Plaintiff so moves on the following grounds:

1. Leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given when justice so requires and the

grant of such leave does not work prejudice to the other party. Rule 15, SCRCP,

strongly favors amendment, and courts are encouraged to freely grant leave to

amend. Stanley v. Kirkpatrick, 357 S.C. 169, 174, 592 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2003).

2. The party opposing amendment has the burden of establishing that the motion

should not be granted. Foggie v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 313 S.C. 98, 103,

431 S.E.2d 587, 590 (1993).

3. The Plaintiff has claims that he should be granted leave to amend his pleading to

allege.

4. The Defendants will be unable to show that amendment will work sufficient

prejudice to them for the court to deny the Plaintiff leave to amend.
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 18 9:05 AM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2014CP2304432
5. “The prejudice Rule 15 envisions is a lack of notice that the new issue is to be

tried and a lack of opportunity to refute it.” Stanley, 357 S.C. at 174.

6. This case was recently placed on the December 10, 2018, trial term. The

Defendants will have plenty of notice of the issues to be tried and plenty of

opportunity to muster what evidence they believe might refute the claims that

would be added in the amendment.

7. Further, the amendment would clarify the claims already pled by the Plaintiff.

8. The Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint is filed as an exhibit to this

motion.

9. This motion is also based upon all applicable statutory law, case law, common

law, and the record in this action.

The undersigned has consulted with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the

matter subject of this motion but has not yet reached a resolution thereof.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew S. Radeker

Andrew S. Radeker
S.C. Bar No. 73743
HARRISON, RADEKER & SMITH, P.A.
Post Office Box 50143
Columbia, South Carolina 29250
(803) 779-2211
drew@harrisonfirm.com (email)
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Columbia, South Carolina

May 18, 2018