Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 01-2546-GTV
December 13, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's' Motion to Amend Pleadings (doc. 105). Plaintiff's seek leave to amend the Complaint in fourteen different respects. Defendants do not oppose many of the proposed amendments. They only oppose Plaintiff's' request for leave to increase their claim for compensatory damages and their request to assert a claim for punitive damages against Defendant Larry Ramsey and a claim for attorney fees against all Defendants.
A final pretrial conference was held in this case on September 18, 2002. The parties submitted a proposed Pretrial Order prior to the conference. Following the conference, the parties revised the Pretrial Order. The final Pretrial Order (doc. 120) was filed on October 31, 2002.
Some of Plaintiff's' proposed amendments were incorporated into the Pretrial Order but with the notation that Plaintiff's were seeking leave to amend to include them. For example, in the "Damages" section of the Pretrial Order, Plaintiff's set forth their increased claim for compensatory damages, their punitive damages claim against Defendant Larry Ramsey, and their attorney fee claim against all Defendants. The "Amendments" section then states that Plaintiff's are seeking leave to amend their pleadings to conform to the damages sought in the "Damages" section.
See Pretrial Order (doc. 120), ¶ 9.a.
Id. ¶ 10.
In their motion to amend, Plaintiff's request leave to amend the Complaint The Pretrial Order, however, supersedes all pleadings and controls the subsequent course of the case. Accordingly, the Pretrial Order supersedes Plaintiff's' Complaint, and no purpose would be served by granting Plaintiff's leave to amend the Complaint at this stage in the litigation. Rather than deny Plaintiff's' motion, however, the Court will treat it as a motion to amend the Pretrial Order.
Doc. 106 at p. 5.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e); D. Kan. Rule 16.2(c).
Smith v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of County of Lyon, 216 F. Supp.2d 1209, 1213 (D. Kan. 2002).
II. Standard for Ruling on a Motion to Amend the Pretrial Order
Under Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial order "maybe modified `only to prevent manifest injustice.' " The decision to modify the pretrial order lies within the trial court's discretion. In exercising that discretion, the court should consider the following factors: "(1) prejudice or surprise to the party opposing trial of the issue; (2) the ability of that party to cure any prejudice; (3) disruption to the orderly and efficient trial of the case by inclusion of the new issue; and (4) bad faith by the party seeking to modify the order." The timing of the motion to amend in relation to commencement of trial is an important element in analyzing whether the amendment would cause prejudice or surprise.
Davey v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 301 F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e)).
Id. Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1222 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
Koch, 203 F.3d at 1222 (citations omitted).
Davey, 301 F.3d at 1210-11.
III. Analysis
A. The Unopposed Proposed Amendments
As noted above, Defendants oppose only those amendments dealing with Plaintiff's' claims for compensatory and punitive damages claims and for attorney fees. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff's leave to amend the Pretrial Order to make all proposed amendments that do not involve Plaintiff's' claims for damages or fees, to the extent the proposed amendments have not already been incorporated into the Pretrial Order.
B. The Opposed Proposed Amendments
The Court will now proceed to determine, under the standards set forth above, whether Plaintiff's are entitled to amend the Pretrial Order to assert (1) an increased claim for compensatory damages, (2) a new claim for punitive damages against Defendant Larry Ramsey, and (3) a new claim for attorney fees against all Defendants.
1. Increased claim for compensatory damages
Defendants oppose Plaintiff's' increased claim for compensatory damages, arguing that Plaintiff's cannot establish a foundation for their alleged increased damages and that the requested damages are too conjectural and speculative to allow recovery. The Court does not find these reasons sufficient to preclude Plaintiff's from amending the Pretrial Order. These are the types of arguments that may be raised at trial and that are better left for the trial judge's decision. Moreover, the Court does not find that increasing the claim for damages will cause Defendants prejudice or surprise at trial or that it will disrupt the trial. Trial is not set to begin until February 4, 2003, and Defendants have ample time to formulate their arguments and defenses relative to the increased claim.
In addition, the Court finds no bad faith on the part of Plaintiff's. Plaintiff's assert that they did not become fully aware of the basis for the increased claim until one of Plaintiff James Stewart's treating physicians was deposed in September 2002. Plaintiff's filed their motion to amend shortly thereafter.
In light of the above, the Court holds that Plaintiff's should be granted leave to amend the Pretrial Order to increase the claim for compensatory damages.
2. Claim for punitive damages against Larry Ramsey
Defendants contend that punitive damages are not recoverable against Larry Ramsey as a matter of law. They incorporate by reference the arguments they have made in their Motion for Partial Summary Judgement and supporting memorandum (doc. 108, 109).
Turning to the factors set forth above, the Court finds no prejudice or surprise to Defendants, no potential disruption of the trial, and no bad faith on the part of Plaintiff's. In addition, the Court believes that the District Judge — who will be deciding Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment — is in a better position to determine whether Plaintiff's should be allowed to present a claim for punitive damages at trial. Plaintiff's will therefore be granted leave to amend the Pretrial Order to assert a claim for punitive damages against Defendant Larry Ramsey. 3. Claim for attorney fees against all Defendants
By granting Plaintiff's leave to assert the proposed punitive damages claim, the undersigned Magistrate Judge is not deciding whether Plaintiff's are entitled to recover punitive damages against Larry Ramsey or any of the other issues relating to punitive damages raised in Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Those issues will be addressed by the District Judge.
For the same reasons stated above with respect to Plaintiff's' proposed claim for punitive damages, the Court will grant Plaintiff's leave to assert their proposed claim for attorney fees.
Again, the undersigned Magistrate Judge is not deciding whether Plaintiff's may recover their attorney fees. That question and the other issues relating to attorney fees which are raised in Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be addressed by the District Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's' Motion to Amend Pleadings (doc. 105) is deemed to be a motion to amend the Pretrial Order and that said motion is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within ten (10) days of the date of filing of this Order, Plaintiff's shall amend the Pretrial Order as set forth herein and submit it to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.