Oliphant v. Villano et al

Filing 284

ORDER denying 283 Motion for Reconsideration re 283 MOTION for Reconsiderationof the Court's Ruling Regarding Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend Their Affirmative Defenses filed by Robert Villano, Mark Sheppard, William Onofrio. Signed by Shira Scheindlin on 02/28/14. (Palmieri, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

--------------------------------------------------------

)(

ANTHONY OLIPHANT,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
- against09 Civ. 862 (SAS)

ROBERT VILLANO, et aI.,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------

)(

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.:
On February 24, 2014, just five business days before trial, defendants
filed a motion for leave to amend their answer to add a statute of limitations
defense for the first time with respect to the intentional tort claims. On February
26, 2014, I denied that motion, noting that defendants had almost a year to file
their motion but neglected to do so until a week before trial. I also noted that
adding an affirmative defense on the eve of trial might prejudice plaintiff.
On February 27,2014, only two business days before trial, defendants
moved for reconsideration. They argued that plaintiff would not be prejudiced by
their amendment because no additional discovery would be required and the
upcoming trial would not be delayed. However, even if defendants' argument that

1

there would be no prejudice has merit, it is simply too late to amend the answer to
raise the statute of limitations defense.
Defendants have not even left plaintiff enough time to respond to their
motion. At this late date and without full briefing, I cannot conclude whether
additional fact discovery would be required in response to the amendment, or
whether plaintiff has a viable equitable tolling argument. Defendants filed their
Answer on May 3, 2013, and could have moved to amend at any point over the last
ten months. Instead, they waited until less than a week before trial to do so. Given
the unjustifiable and undue delay in seeking to add an affirmative defense,
defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied.

Dated:

February 2 <8 2014
New York, New York

2

- Appearances ­

For Plaintiff:
Dennis O. Brown, Esq.
Joseph R. Geoghegan, Esq.
Gordon & Rees LLP
100 Pearl Street 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

For Defendants:
Scott M. Karsten, Esq.
Kateryna Lagun, Esq.
Karsten & TaUberg, LLC
8 Lowell Rd.
West Hartford, CT 06119
[phone]
Fax: [phone]

3