Haseloh et al v. Saunders County Medical Center

Filing 34

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ex rel., LINDA R. HASELOH,
Plaintiff,
V.
SAUNDERS MEDICAL CENTER, a
statutorily-created division of
Saunders County, Nebraska,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV240

ORDER

Plaintiff has moved to amend her Complaint so as to add a slander/defamation claim
against Defendant Saunders Medical Center (“SMC”). (Filing 31.) Defendant opposes the
motion.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a court should “freely give leave” to amend
a pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Nevertheless, a party does not have
an absolute right to amend and “denial of leave to amend may be justified by undue delay,
bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment or unfair prejudice to the
opposing party.” Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 833 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
and citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be denied as futile. See Cornelia I. Crowell GST
Trust v. Possis Med., Inc., 519 F.3d 778, 782 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen the court denies leave
on the basis of futility, it means the district court has reached the legal conclusion that the
amended complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss”). Tort actions against political
subdivisions of the State of Nebraska, such as SMC,1 are governed by the Political
1

The Complaint alleges that SMC is “a statutorily-created division of Saunders
County, Nebraska.” (Filing 1.) Nebraska courts have recognized that hospitals created by
a political subdivision pursuant to statute are covered by the Political Subdivisions Tort
Claims Act. See Green v. Box Butte General Hospital, 284 Neb. 243, 250, 818 N.W.2d 589,
595 (2012) (applying Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act to a county hospital); Noll v.
Valley County Hospital, 212 Neb. 22, 321 N.W.2d 66 (1982) (same).

Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. McKenna v. Julian, 277 Neb. 522, 527, 763 N.W.2d 384, 389
(2009). The Act removes, in part, “the traditional immunity of subdivisions for the negligent
acts of their employees.” Id. However, the Act does not apply to, and therefore does not
waive immunity as to, any claim arising out of “libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or
interference with contract rights.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910. Because SMC is immune from
claims arising out of slander, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments to the Complaint would not
withstand a motion to dismiss.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (filing 31)
is denied.
DATED September 9, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2