Summary
denying leave to amend, noting that plaintiff had amended twice without adding her husband as a party, and that the amendment would require the reopening of discovery and delay resolution of the case
Summary of this case from Pemrick v. StracherOpinion
No. 00 Civ. 8808 (LAK)
July 30, 2002
ORDER
By motion dated June 26, 2002, plaintiff seeks leave to serve a third amended complaint, this to add her husband as a party in order to permit assertion of a claim for loss of consortium.
This case was commenced on November 17, 2000, almost two years ago. A scheduling order entered January 31, 2001 provided that no additional parties might be joined after March 9, 2001 and that no amendments to the pleadings would be permitted after March 23, 2001. (Docket Item 7) Nevertheless, plaintiff already has amended twice without previously adding her husband as a party.
In September 2001 and January 2002, the parties sought extensions of the pretrial schedule without seeking an extension of time within which to amend the pleadings or to add parties. The Court granted both applications. (Docket Items 11, 15) The latest of these orders provided for the completion of discovery by July 26, 2002 and the filing of a joint pretrial order and dispositive motions by August 26, 2002. In other words, the case, but for plaintiff's belated motion, is virtually trial ready.
Plaintiff has offered no sufficient excuse for the failure to seek to assert the claim for loss of consortium when the action was commenced, let alone by the date fixed by the initial scheduling order or in the two previous amended complaints Nor did she seek any extension of time within which to seek leave to assert such a claim despite two prior applications for extensions of other aspects of the pretrial schedule.
The Court is mindful that leave to amend ordinarily is to be granted freely and that mere delay usually is insufficient reason to deny it. But there is more here. Plaintiff was aware of this claim from the beginning yet inexplicably failed to assert it. She failed to comply with the Court's scheduling order. She allegedly informed defendant of an intention to assert a loss of consortium claim as early as April 2, 2002 (Alter Aff. ¶ 6), yet inexplicably waited almost another three months before seeking to amend. At this point, granting the motion would require the reopening of discovery and delay the resolution of the action still further despite the fact that it is among the older cases on the Court's docket. The additional delay itself would be prejudicial to the defendant, which has a legitimate interest in having this claim adjudicated, one way or the other, and thus removing the contingent liability from its balance sheet and, presumably, its roster of open insurance claims.
Given the plaintiff's failure to assert the claim, despite its obviousness, when the action was commenced, her failure to comply with the scheduling orders, her inexplicable delay in seeking leave to amend after forming the intention to assert the claim, and her disregard of the impact of that delay on the management of the Court's calendar, the concededly limited prejudice to the defendant is sufficient to warrant denial of the motion.
Motion denied.
SO ORDERED.