Coon v. Medtronics, Inc. et al
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/18/14. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:14CV1814 HEA
MEDTRONIC, INC., et al.,
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. The motion
will be denied.
Although the Federal Rules have a liberal policy toward amendments, “[p]ost-dismissal
motions to amend are disfavored,” In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability
Litigation, 623 F.3d 1200, 1208 (8th Cir. 2010), and amendments should not be granted when
they would be frivolous or “futile.” See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L.
Ed. 2d 222 (1962); Coleman v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 933 F.2d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 1991).
In the order dismissing this action, the Court noted that plaintiff is a resident of New
York, that defendants operate in Minnesota and Tennessee, and that the allegations in plaintiff’s
complaint center around an incident that took place in New York and plaintiff’s treatment by
various doctors in various medical facilities in New York. Accordingly, the Court explained that
it would dismiss the action because none of the requirements for venue under 28 U.S.C. §
1391(a) had been met.
In his amended complaint, plaintiff fails to even allege that venue
properly lies in the district.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2014.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- !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?