This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 10 -
II. The Circuit Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Adams’ Motion for
Leave to Amend its Complaint
A. Standard of Review
Rule 1:8 provides that leave to amend “shall be liberally granted in furtherance of the
ends of justice.” “The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint rests within the
sound discretion of the [circuit] court.” Kimble v. Carey, 279 Va. 652, 662 (2010). “A
reviewing court can conclude that an abuse of discretion occurred ‘only when reasonable jurists
could not differ [about] the correct result,’ which is different from the result reached by the
circuit court.” Woods v. Sing Szechuan Rest., LLC, 84 Va. App. 321, 337 (2025) (alteration in
original) (quoting Graydon Manor, LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors, 79 Va. App. 156, 168 (2023)).
“In evaluating the circuit court’s exercise of discretion, we consider, among other things,
whether the court previously granted leave to amend, how long the case has been pending, and
the extent to which the other side would be prejudiced by allowing amendment.” Doe v. Baker,
299 Va. 628, 656 (2021). A court may also consider whether the proposed amendment is
relevant and material to the cause of action. Kimble, 279 Va. at 662. “In other words, a circuit
court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to amend a complaint when the
amendment sought will ‘ha[ve] no legal effect.’” Woods, 84 Va. App. at 337 (alteration in
original) (quoting Kimble, 279 Va. at 662).
B. Adams Failed to Timely and Specifically Object to the Circuit Court’s
Finding That Amendment Would Be Futile
The circuit court denied Adams’ motion for leave to amend its complaint on two
independent grounds: (1) there was “no longer a pleading” before the court which could be
amended because the court had already dismissed Adams’ complaint; and (2) amendment would
be futile because “the deficiencies found by the Court cannot be remedied.” On appeal, Adams
challenges both grounds, as it must. See Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Batt, 284 Va. Jump to an indexed page (13 of 13)