Opinion
CV-2021-190
07-28-2022
JOHN ERICKSEN and KATHRYN ERICKSEN, Plaintiffs, v. MAINE COAST KITCHEN DESIGN, INC. and TINA RICHARDSON, Defendants.
Plaintiffs' Attorney: Asha Echeverria, Esq. and Zachary Brandwein, Esq. of Bernstein Shur Defendants' Attorney: F. David Walker, IV, Esq. of Rudman & Winchell
Plaintiffs' Attorney: Asha Echeverria, Esq. and Zachary Brandwein, Esq. of Bernstein Shur
Defendants' Attorney: F. David Walker, IV, Esq. of Rudman & Winchell
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
MaryGay Kennedy, Justice
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs John and Kathryn Ericksen's ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Defendants Maine Coast Kitchen Design, Inc. ("MCKD") and Tina Richardson oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
M.R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, and futility of amendment are grounds for denial of a motion to amend. Montgomery v. Eaton Peabody, LLP, 2016 ME 44, ¶ 13,135 A.3d 106.
The Court's scheduling order provides for a June 2, 2022 deadline for amendment of the pleadings. Plaintiffs filed the pending motion on June 2, 2022. Plaintiffs seek leave to add an eighth count for violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, 5 M.R.S. §§ 205-A to 213 ("UTPA"), to their Complaint. The existing counts of their Complaint concern a construction contract for renovations to be performed in Plaintiffs' home by MCKD, and alleged breaches of that contract.
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to offer adequate justification for the timing of the proposed amendment. (Defs.' Opp'n 1.) Plaintiffs need not necessarily provide an explicit justification for the timing, unless it would otherwise appear that they are acting in bad faith or for delay. Here, the timing is explained at least in part by the fact that Plaintiffs issued a settlement offer, as required by 5 M.R.S. § 213(1-A), on April 12, 2022. The pending motion was, therefore, filed shortly after the expiration of UTPA's thirty-day settlement period. See 5 M.R.S. § 213(1-A). Defendants have not informed the Court of any other facts suggesting bad faith, and none are apparent from the motion itself.
Defendants further argue that granting the motion would unduly prejudice them because "the Parties have engaged in significant discovery tailored to existing claims," (Defs.' Opp'n 2.) However, as Plaintiffs emphasize, the UTPA claim arises from the same set of operative facts as Plaintiffs' existing claims. Moreover, the current scheduling order sets a discovery deadline of October 2, 2022. Although Defendants suggest that they may need to reopen the deposition of Kathryn Ericksen and that additional written discovery requests may be served, this does not rise to undue prejudice. See Montgomery, 2016 ME 44, ¶ 14, 135 A.3d 106 (affirming denial of motion to amend on undue delay and undue prejudice grounds where the proposed third amended complaint was filed over three years after the original complaint and would have "completely change[d] the nature of the malpractice case"); Drinkwater v, Patten Realty Corp., 563 A.2d 772, 778 (Me. 1989) (affirming denial of motion to amend on undue prejudice grounds where the motion was filed more than three years after commencement of the action and only five days before scheduled trial date).
In sum, no grounds exist for denial of the pending motion. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
The entry is:
Plaintiffs John and Kathryn Ericksen's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, is hereby accepted. Defendants shall answer Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint within 10 days of the date that this Order is docketed.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).