Opinion
No. CIV 99-0799 LCS/WWD
May 4, 2000
ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint, filed April 20, 2000 (Doc. 26). The Court, having considered the pleadings, arguments of counsel, relevant law, and being otherwise fully advised, finds that this Motion should be DENIED.
In her original complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims under Title VII for discrimination based on gender and retaliation, as well as a supplemental state law claim for defamation. Plaintiff now seeks to amend her complaint to join a former co-worker as a defendant and to assert claims under state law for battery and intentional spoilation of evidence. Defendant responds that the motion to amend is untimely and that the amendment would be futile, cause undue delay and the new claims in the proposed amended complaint are not related to the claims in the original complaint.
After a responsive pleading has been filed, a plaintiff may amend the complaint only by leave of the court or upon written consent of the adverse party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Leave of the court shall be freely granted when justice so requires. Id.
However, if the court determines there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice, or futility of the amendment, leave to amend may be denied. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 2127, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
Untimeliness alone is a sufficient reason to deny leave to amend, especially when the party filing the motion has no adequate explanation for the delay. See Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994).
This case was filed on July 19, 1999. Discovery terminated March 1, 2000. The Provisional Discovery Plan permitted Plaintiff until December 15, 1999 to join additional parties and to amend the pleadings.
The proposed amendments are based upon events were known to Plaintiff before she file her original complaint. The identity of the alleged perpetrator could have been ascertained early in discovery through the exercise of due diligence. Under these circumstances, the motion to amend in untimely and Plaintiff has failed to offer an adequate explanation for the delay. Discovery has terminated and the joining of a new defendant and new claims at this late date would require a great deal of additional discovery.
Furthermore, the new state law claims asserted in the proposed complaint do not arise from the same operative facts as the claims in the original complaint and Plaintiff has failed to show a clear relationship between the new claims and the original claims.
For these reasons, the motion to amend should be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.