Opinion
Case No. 00-2069-KHV
February 20, 2001.
MEMORANDUMAND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition to Add Claims for Punitive Damages (doc. 67) against defendants Ryan, Snodell, and Mullen. Plaintiff seeks to add claims for punitive damages against a nurse and two physicians allegedly resulting from the medical malpractice as to plaintiff's ward. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is granted.
The parties cite K.S.A. 60-3703 as the applicable standard in determining whether to allow amendment to add punitive damage claims against defendants. The Court has held that this state statute is procedural in nature and does not control pleadings in federal courts. See, e.g., Cook v. Riverside Health System, No. 97-1224-WEB, 1998 WL 173193, *2 (D.Kan. Apr. 1, 1998); Baumann v. Hall, No. 98-2126-JWL, 1998 WL 513008, *1, n. 1 (D.Kan. July 15, 1998); Whittenburg v. L.J. Holding Co., 830 F. Supp. 557, 565 n. 8 (D.Kan. 1993). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the pleadings in this case.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings in federal court. It provides, in pertinent part, that "a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." The Supreme Court has stated: "[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave, as the rules require, be `freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). A district court is clearly justified in denying a motion to amend as futile if the proposed amendment cannot withstand a motion to dismiss or otherwise fails to state a claim. Cook, 1998 WL 173193 at *1 (citing Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992)).
Defendants fail to raise any objections to plaintiff's motion based upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. Their briefs appear to assume, moveover, that the proposed amended complaint alleges wanton misconduct against them. The Court sustains the motion, therefore, to authorize plaintiff to file his proposed amended complaint for medical negligence.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition to Add Claims for Punitive Damages (doc. 67) against defendants Ryan, Snodell, and Mullen is granted. Plaintiff may file his Amended Complaint for Medical Negligence within 10 days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.