Simon v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 26 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall detach and docket Plaintiff's Amended Complaint which was submitted as an attachment to its motion for leave. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/20/15. (JWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

RALPH SIMON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SELECT COMFORT RETAIL CORP.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-1136 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
(Doc. No. 26) In support of its motion, Plaintiff states that it recently learned during discovery
that Select Comfort Corporation may have taken part in the design and manufacture of the
mattress at issue in this case. (Doc. No. 27 at 3) Plaintiff seeks to add Select Comfort
Corporation, parent of wholly owned subsidiary Select Comfort Retail Corporation, as a
defendant in this action. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to
show good cause for leave to amend after the March 1, 2015 deadline in the Case Management
Order. (Doc. No. 29)
Plaintiff's motion was filed on March 10, 2015, nine days after the motion deadline and
certainly not late enough to be prejudicial. Moreover, delay in seeking to amend, alone, is an
insufficient justification to deny leave. Issues of delay must be considered with other factors
showing prejudice to the non-moving party. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 455
(8th Cir.1998) (citing Buder v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 644 F.2d 690, 694
(8th Cir. 1981)). The Court finds the circumstances do not justify denying Plaintiff leave to
amend. Discovery remains open; in fact, on March 9, 2015, the Court granted the parties’ joint

motion to extend discovery and expert deadlines in this case. (Doc. No. 25) Neither side has filed
dispositive motions and the amended complaint is based on the same facts alleged in the original
complaint. Cf. Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835 (8th Cir.2004) (given the advanced
stage of the litigation process, court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to file
amended complaint one year after initial complaint was filed and after defendant had moved for
summary judgment). Finally, the trial date remains ten months away.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [26]
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall detach and docket Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint which was submitted as an attachment to its motion for leave.

_________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of March, 2015.

-2-