|STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA||)||IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS|
FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
|COUNTY OF RICHLAND||)|
|Studsvik Processing Facility Limited||)|
|Liability Company d/b/a Studsvik||)|
|Processing Facility Erwin, LLC,||)|
|South Carolina State Budget and Control||)|
|Board, an Agency of the State of South||)|
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Amend Complaint submitted by Studsvik Processing Facility Limited Liability Company d/b/a Studsvik Processing Facility Erwin, LLC (“Studsvik”) on March 23, 2010.
Standard of Review
Rule 15(a), SCRCP, provides in relevant part that "a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires and does not prejudice any other party." Rule 15(a), SCRCP. "The prejudice Rule 15 envisions is a lack of notice that the new issue is going to be tried, and a lack of opportunity to refute it." Parker v. Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer Dist., 362 S.C. 276, 286, 607 S.E.2d 711, 716-17 (Ct.App.2005). It is well established that the decision whether to grant or deny a Rule 15(a) motion is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that "the party opposing the motion has the burden of establishing prejudice." Foggie v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 313 S.C. 98, 103, 431 S.E.2d 587, 590 (1993); City of North Myrtle Beach v. Lewis-Davis, 360 S.C. 225, 232-33, 599 S.E.2d 462, 465 (Ct. App. 2004); Pruitt v. Bowers, 330 S.C. 483, 499 S.E.2d 250, 253 (Ct. App. 1998).
After the Court’s consideration of the pleadings on file with the Court, the motion and supporting memoranda of law, and the relevant legal issues, the undersigned hereby finds that the Defendant will experience no prejudice if Studsvik’s Motion to Amend Complaint is granted, and Rule 15(a), SCRCP, requires that leave to amend be freely granted to Studsvik in the absence of prejudice to the Defendants. Parker, 362 S.C. at 286, 607 S.E.2d at 716. The Court notes that while the South Carolina Budget and Control Board does not consent to this motion, it also does not oppose this motion.
Therefore, it is:
ADJUDGED that Studsvik’s Motion to Amend IS GRANTED, and Studsvik may file its Amended Complaint. Granting this motion neither broadens the existing scope of discovery, nor increases the B&CB’s obligations to respond to existing or future discovery requests.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE. CLIFTON NEWMAN
Dated: April 4, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina