Sports Capital Holdings (St. Louis), LLC et al v. Schindler Elevator Corporation

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 67 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Petition filed by Plaintiff Sports Capital Holdings (St. Louis), LLC, Plaintiff Kiel Center Partners, L.P. motion is GRANTED..Plaintiffs' second amended compl aint is allowed and shall be filed in its entirety as to defendant KONE, Inc. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is allowed and shall be filed as to defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation with the exception that Count IV is stricken. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/2/14. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SPORTS CAPITAL HOLDINGS
(ST. LOUIS), LLC, AND KIEL
CENTER PARTNERS, LP,
D/B/A SCOTTRADE CENTER,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION )
AND KONE, INC. F/K/A MONTGOMERY )
KONE INC., F/K/A MONTGOMERY
)
ELEVATOR COMPANY,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:12CV1108 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ request to file a second amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The motion has been
briefed and is ready for disposition.
I.

Background
This lawsuit arises out of a catastrophic mechanical failure of an escalator inside

the Scottrade Center, resulting in the injuries of several persons riding the escalator, as
well as damage to the escalator itself. This lawsuit was originally filed in the Circuit
Court for the City of St. Louis and was removed to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a multi-count complaint against defendant Schindler alleging
breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent
hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, implied indemnity, and punitive

damages. Schindler filed a motion to dismiss the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision,
and punitive damages. On January 2, 2013, this Court granted Schindler’s motion and
the claims were dismissed with prejudice. The claims remaining against Schindler were
breach of contract and implied indemnity.
On September 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against defendant
Schindler and adding defendant KONE. The first amended complaint included claims of
breach of contract (Count I) and implied indemnity (Count IV) against Schindler and
strict liability defective product (Count II), negligent design and manufacture (Count III),
implied indemnity (Count IV), and punitive damages (Count V) against KONE. In
response to the first amended complaint, both defendants filed motions to dismiss.
Schindler’s motion sought dismissal of certain damages claims in Count I and the implied
indemnity claim in Count IV. KONE’s motion sought dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims in
Counts II, III, IV, and V.
On April 10, 2014, this Court ruled on the motions to dismiss. Sports Capital
Holdings (St. Louis), LLC. v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 4:12CV1108 SNLJ, 2014 WL
1400159 (E.D. Mo. April 10, 2014). The Court granted defendant Schindler’s motion to
dismiss. Due to a contractual liability limitation in the contract with Schindler, the Court
found that plaintiffs’ claims for damages against Schindler are limited to the annual price
of the parties’ contract and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court dismissed
with prejudice all other damages pled by plaintiffs that are expressly barred by the
contract, including damages for loss of use, loss of goodwill, and damages incurred as a
2

result of claims by injured third-parties. Additionally, the Court dismissed the implied
indemnity claim in Count IV. Defendant KONE’s motion was granted in part and denied
in part. Due to pleading deficiencies, the implied indemnity claim in Count IV and the
separate punitive damages claim in Count V were dismissed without prejudice. The
motion was denied in all other respects.
Following the Court’s Order, plaintiffs filed a request for leave to file a second
amended complaint. By the second amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to address the
deficiencies in their first amended complaint found by the Court. The second amended
complaint re-pleads the implied indemnity claim against both defendants and the punitive
damages claim against KONE. Schindler and KONE oppose the filing of the second
amended complaint.
II.

Legal Standard
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for leave to

amend pleadings. “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). However, parties do not have an absolute right to amend their
pleadings, even under this liberal standard. Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d
709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). Whether to grant a motion for leave to amend is within the
discretion of the court. Popoalii v. Correctional Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.
2008). A district court appropriately denies a movant for leave to amend if there are
compelling reasons such as “undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the nonmoving party, or futility
of the amendment.” Id. The party opposing the amendment has the burden of
3

demonstrating the amendment would be unfairly prejudicial. Roberson v. Hayti Police
Dept., 241 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001).
III.

Discussion
A.

Defendant KONE

KONE opposes the second amended complaint arguing that it is untimely under
the First Amended Case Management Order and that if allowed the “untimely
amendment will result in the necessity of filing additional written discovery.” The only
prejudice KONE alleges is the untimeliness and the need for additional written discovery.
The Court does not find either of these arguments compelling. KONE does not suggest
that there are any deficiencies in the pleading of the re-stated claims for implied
indemnity and punitive damages.
Plaintiffs filed their request for leave to file a second amended complaint within
seven days of the Court’s Order dismissing the implied indemnity and punitive damages
claims. It is apparent that KONE’s true complaint as to timeliness is based on the timing
of the Court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss after the deadline in the CMO for filing of
motions to amend pleadings. In its opposition to the request, KONE suggests that if the
amendment is allowed, the Court owes it an amendment of the current CMO stating “it
would appear that this Court has invited the amendment plaintiffs are seeking.” Further,
KONE argues that it needs additional time to “propound additional discovery to plaintiffs
based upon the newly amended complaint and also to conduct discovery on the complex
issues raised in this litigation.” However, the claims stated in the second amended
complaint are the same claims that were stated in the first amended complaint. KONE
4

was aware of the claims and has had an opportunity to conduct discovery on those claims.
There is nothing new or surprising about the second amended complaint that would
require new discovery that could not have been contemplated based on the first amended
complaint. This Court will allow the filing of the second amended complaint as to
defendant KONE but will deny the request for an amendment of the CMO.
B.

Defendant Schindler

Schindler opposes the second amended complaint for the reason that the implied
indemnity claim is premised solely on damages related to third-party claims, which
Schindler maintains are barred by the Court’s prior Order of April 10, 2014. Further,
Schindler argues that to the extent plaintiffs are attempting to plead punitive damages in
the implied indemnity claim, as set forth in the “Wherefore” paragraph, such a claim
would be barred by the Court’s prior Order of January 2, 2013. Schindler is correct.
As pled in the second amended complaint, the implied indemnity claim is
premised entirely on damages allegedly incurred as a result of claims made by injured
third parties that were satisfied by plaintiffs. Such damages are barred by the parties’
contract and this Court’s prior Order of April 10, 2014. Specifically, this Court held that
all “damages that are expressly barred by the parties’ contract, including damages for loss
of use, loss of goodwill, and damages incurred as a result of claims by injured thirdparties, are dismissed with prejudice.”
Apart from the implied indemnity claim in Count IV, the second amended
complaint re-states the breach of contract claim against Schindler that remains following
the Court’s Order of April 10, 2014. Because the Court is allowing the filing of the
5

second amended complaint against defendant KONE, plaintiffs’ second amended
complaint is allowed and shall be filed as to Schindler with the exception that Count IV is
stricken.
IV.

Conclusion
The Court will grant plaintiffs leave to file the second amended complaint as set

forth herein.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a second
amended complaint (ECF #67) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint is
allowed and shall be filed in its entirety as to defendant KONE, Inc. Plaintiffs’ second
amended complaint is allowed and shall be filed as to defendant Schindler Elevator
Corporation with the exception that Count IV is stricken.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2014.

___________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6