Opinion
Civil action. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Leahy, District Judge, held that where proposed amendments to the complaint did not involve the validity of the asserted claim and allegedly showed an agreement involving an usurious demand, plaintiff was entitled to amend to seek a new theory for recovery.
Order permitting an amendment of the complaint.
Tom P. Monteverde, Philadelphia, Pa. (Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis), Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Francis W. Sullivan and Edwin Barnet, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
LEAHY, District Judge.
1. Plaintiff has a new theory for recovery. He wants to amend his complaint. Rule 15 of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., says he should. Also Moore agrees. F.R. 15(c) abolishes any defense of intervening statute of limitations between amendments to pleadings. Moreover, it is valid for a litigant to change his theory of recovery. Delay in amendment hardly works prejudice.
3 Moore's Fed.Practice, p. 828.
See Copeland Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp., 5 Cir., 199 F.2d 566; Green v. Walsh, D.C., 21 F.R.D. 15; Batkiewicz v. Seas Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 53 F.Supp. 802.
Busam Motor Sales v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 469; Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 546.
Copeland Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp., supra; Heay v. Phillips, 9 Cir., 201 F.2d 220; Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., D.C.W.D.Pa., 101 F.Supp. 549. See, also, Stepp v. United States, 4 Cir., 207 F.2d 909; Armstrong Cork Co. v. Patterson-Sargent Co., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 534.
2. The proposed amendments do not involve validity of the asserted claim. Here the proposed amendment shows, it is said, an agreement involving an usurious demand. Courts have rejected such arguments.
Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., D.C., 15 F.R.D. 354, affirmed 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 714, 59 A.L.R.2d 159; Cravatts v. Klozo Fastener Corp., D.C., 15 F.R.D. 12; Naamloze Vennootschap Suikerfabriek ‘ Wono-Aseh’ v. Chase National Bank, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 261. Look at Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 546.
3. If plaintiff wants to amend he should be allowed to.
An appropriate order should be submitted.