Piccirilli v. Wyeth LLC et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file her Second Amended Complaint within five (5) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/15/11. (LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 6 7 8 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Corrine Piccirilli, Plaintiff, vs. 10 11 Wyeth LLC, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Inc., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 No. CV 10-8244-PCT-JAT ORDER Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 32). The Court now rules on the Motion. Motion to Amend 17 In her Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff requests leave 18 to affirmatively plead the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiff does not seek 19 to add new causes of action. Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend before the August 1, 2011 20 deadline set in the Court’s Scheduling Order. 21 The Court should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” 22 FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2). Whether to grant a motion to amend depends on the following 23 factors: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of 24 amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Western 25 Shoshone Nat. Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991). The most important of 26 these factors is prejudice to the opposing party. U.S. v. Pend Oreille Public Utility Dist., No. 27 1, 926 F.2d 1502, 1511 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 1 Defendants do not argue undue delay or bad faith on the part of Plaintiff, nor do they 2 argue they will suffer prejudice – the most important factor – if the Court grants the Motion 3 to Amend. Defendants argue that the proposed amendments would be futile and that Plaintiff 4 has amended her complaint many times already. 5 Defendants argue Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts in her proposed amendment 6 to entitle her to tolling of the applicable statute of limitations based on either fraudulent 7 concealment or the discovery rule. Without opining whether the proposed amendments 8 would survive a motion to dismiss, the Court finds Defendants have not demonstrated that 9 amendment would be futile. The Court will not address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and 10 Defendants’ statute-of-limitations defense on a Motion to Amend. 11 Defendants also argue that Plaintiff should not be given further opportunity to amend 12 because she already has had several opportunities to amend. In making this argument, 13 Defendants mistakenly rely on the procedural history of various prior lawsuits that included 14 Plaintiff’s claim. In the case pending before the undersigned, Plaintiff has amended her 15 complaint only once before. The Court therefore disagrees with Defendants’ assertion that 16 Plaintiff has had several opportunities to amend her complaint. 17 Because the Court finds that amendment would not be futile and that Plaintiff has not 18 repeatedly amended her complaint in the pending case and because Defendants have not 19 argued undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice, the Court will grant the Motion to Amend. 20 Plaintiff will have five (5) days to file her Second Amended Complaint. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 23 Complaint (Doc. 32). Plaintiff must file her Second Amended Complaint within five (5) days 24 of the date of this Order. 25 DATED this 15th day of September, 2011. 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?