Summary
noting that a prospective amendment did not prejudice the defendant when the amendment would not materially alter the allegations in the complaint
Summary of this case from Coleman v. MilliganOpinion
C.A. No. 98C-09-064 RRC.
Submitted: May 9, 2000.
Decided: May 23, 2000.
On Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint. GRANTED.
ORDER
This 23rd day of May, 2000, upon consideration of Plaintiff's "Motion To Amend Complaint, To Add A Plaintiff" pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15, it appears to this Court that:
1. Plaintiffs have moved to amend the complaint to add Michael C. Clampitt, a Delaware resident, as a plaintiff. Plaintiffs represent that the only addition to the Amended Class Action Complaint filed on December 2, 1999 would be paragraph 8A which states that "Plaintiff Michael C. Clampitt ("Clampitt") is an individual residing in Lewes, Delaware. Clampitt purchased a drive during the class period, to wit, on October 30, 1998." Plaintiffs further represent that Mr. Clampitt will adopt as his pleadings the allegations contained in the already filed Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiff relies on Rule 15 which requires that leave to amend be "freely given when justice so requires."
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, To Add A Plaintiff at 1.
Super. Ct Civ. R. 15(a).
2. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs request is untimely and that the proposed amendment is "futile given the multiple deficiencies of Count III." Defendant claims that Plaintiffs have sought to amend the complaint to "obviate one of the grounds upon which [Defendant] is seeking dismissal of Count III of the Amended Complaint." Defendant asks this Court to deny Plaintiffs' motion.
Opposition of Iomega Corporation to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Plaintiff at 1.
Id. at 2.
3. Superior Court Civil Rule 15(a) 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 purpose of this rule is to encourage the disposition of litigation on its merits. An amendment to a pleading is permitted under liberal construction of this rule unless the opposing party would be prejudiced thereby. The mere fact than an amendment is offered late in the case is not enough to bar it if the other party is not prejudiced.
Grand Ventures, Inc. v. Whaley, Del. Supr., 632 A.2d 62 (1993).
Dunfee v. Blue Rock Van Storage, Inc., Del. Super. 266 A.2d 187 (1970); Gott v. Newark Motors, Inc., Del. Super., 267 A.2d 596 (1970); Paul v. Chromalytics Corp., Del. Super., 343 A.2d 622 (1975).
Itek Corp. v. Chicago Aerial Indus., Inc., Del. Super., 257 A.2d 232 (1969), aff'd, Del. Supr., 274 A.2d 141 (1971).
4. Plaintiffs' amendment to the complaint does not alter the allegations set forth in the Amended Class Action Complaint. The addition of Plaintiff Clampitt does not prejudice Defendant. Although this motion to amend complaint should probably have been brought on earlier, there has been no "evidence of bad faith, undue delay, dilatory motive, undue prejudice or futility of amendment" on the part of Plaintiffs.
Guardian Construction Company v. Pike Creek Office Park Limited Partnership, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 13467, Jacobs, V.C. (Nov. 2, 1994) (Mem. Op.) At 5.
5. This Court does not reach whether this ruling has any bearing on 1) any of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint or 2) Defendant's pending motion to dismiss Count III.
6. For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint. To Add A Plaintiff is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.