Randall P. Ewing, Jr., et ux. v. Erik Carrier, et al.

Petitioners sued 1645 W. Farragut LLC after they attempted to buy a home from it. A jury awarded Petitioners $905,000, which remains unsatisfied. In that litigation, Petitioners moved for leave to amend their complaint to assert claims against Respondents Erik Carrier and D’Aprile Properties. The district court denied the motion because it would require re­ opening discovery, not because the claims were futile. Petitioners then brought this separate action against Respondents. The Seventh Circuit dismissed because Petitioners unsuccessfully attempted to amend their complaint in the first case. The question presented is: Should a court dismiss a plaintiffs claim, using its inherent authority or otherwise, because they first filed a motion for leave to amend to join the defendant to a plaintiffs lawsuit against another party when claim preclusion law did not otherwise require the plaintiff to raise those claims in the first lawsuit, as the Seventh Circuit held, or is the motion for leave to amend irrelevant, as the Second and Tenth Circuits have held?