State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Hartman et al

Filing 156

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 147 Motion for Reconsideration re 144 Order on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 1/27/2014. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMIE N. BELL,
)
) Case No. 12-CV-2456 KHV-KGG
Defendant, Cross-Claimant/
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
and
)
)
C.M., a minor, by and through her natural )
guardian and next friend, BRANLYN
)
FINNELL, DALLAS N. HARTMAN,
)
CHARLES C. CONNER III, JARED M.
)
WILKINSON and THE PANTRY, INC.
)
)
Defendants/Cross-Claim
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
)
KENNETH M. KEEN,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Third Party Plaintiff Jamie Bell has moved (Doc. 147) for reconsideration of

this Court’s Order denying her motion to amend her cross claim out of time to add
a claim of punitive damages (Doc. 144). Cross-Claim Defendant Pantry Inc.
opposes the motion. (Doc. 150.)
A motion for reconsideration must be based on (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. D. Kan. Rule 7.3. These are not demonstrated
by the present motion, which is, therefore, DENIED.
The motion to amend was originally denied because the movant failed to
show good cause why the motion was not filed within the amendment period set by
the Scheduling Order, or more particularly, why she waited until 17 days before
the end of the discovery period. Her present argument is essentially that she
received additional evidence supporting her punitive damages claim after the last
motion to amend was filed and, paradoxically, that the parties understood that she
was conducting discovery on a potential punitive damages claim much earlier in
discovery. Third-Party Defendant contests the former claim, and presents
information that tends to show that at least some of the information was presented
two months before the initial motion was filed.
The central issue in the Court’s underlying Order was whether good cause
was shown for filing the motion to amend after deadline for doing so. There is no
claim that the law has changed since the Court’s ruling. The claim for “new

evidence” by the movant is that even more supporting evidence was obtained after
the motion was filed. However, the denial was not based on any perceived
weakness of Bell’s punitive damages claim, rather on the failure to complete her
pleadings in a timely manner. Even if additional new evidence was obtained,
which The Pantry disputes, this does not explain the failure to move to amend, at
the latest, two months before the conclusion of discovery. Finally, there is no
showing that the failure to amend to add a punitive damages claim will result in
manifest injustice.
The movant also asks that the court view the present motion as a new motion
to amend. As a new motion, however, the present motion is even more untimely
than the previous motion. This is not mitigated by a claim that more evidence was
found to support the punitive damages claim after the previous motion.
The Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 147) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 27th day of January, 2014.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge