Hauck v. Wabash National Corporation

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granting 113 Plaintiff's Revised Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LINDA HAUCK as personal representative
of the Estate of Deborah A. Chambers,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civ. No. 18-471 KG/LF

WABASH NATIONAL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Revised Opposed Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint (Revised Motion to Amend), filed September 18, 2019. (Doc. 113).
Defendant responded on October 7, 2019, and Plaintiff replied on October 14, 2019. (Docs. 114
and 115). Having reviewed the Revised Motion to Amend and the accompanying briefing, the
Court grants the Revised Motion to Amend as described below.
I. The Complaint
On September 6, 2016, Deborah Chambers was driving a PT Cruiser that collided with a
semi-trailer, under-ridding the side of the semi-trailer (the subject semi-trailer). (Doc. 1-1) at ¶¶
19 and 22. Chambers died as a result of the collision. Id. at ¶ 23. On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff
filed her Complaint alleging that Defendant manufactured the subject semi-trailer and identifying
it as a 2000 Wabash DVCV semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W1YL629228. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff
alleges that the semi-trailer failed to have “any shield, guard or other device to prevent vehicles
such as the PT Cruiser from under-riding the side of the Subject Semi-Trailer.” Id. at ¶ 21.
Consequently, Plaintiff brings strict liability and negligence claims against Defendant for the
defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of its semi-trailer. Id. at ¶¶ 24-51.

II. Procedural Background and the Revised Motion to Amend
Since the filing of the Complaint, Defendant has asserted that it did not manufacture the
subject semi-trailer identified in the Complaint. In fact, the subject semi-trailer is unavailable
and Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for spoliation, which is pending. (Doc. 34).
Defendant also filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims based on the
semi-trailer identified in the Complaint. (Doc. 90). After further discovery on whether
Defendant manufactured the subject semi-trailer, Plaintiff uncovered evidence suggesting the
subject semi-trailer could have been a 2004 Wabash DVCV semi-trailer, VIN
1JJV532W84L876286. The parties, therefore, filed supplemental briefing on the motion for
summary judgment to address that additional evidence. (Docs. 108 and 111).
While the motion for summary judgment was pending, Plaintiff filed this Revised
Motion to Amend so she can allege in an amended complaint that the subject semi-trailer was
“either a 2000 Wabash DVCV semi-trailer (VIN: 1JJV532 W1YL629228) or a 2004 Wabash
DVCV semi-trailer (VIN: 1JJV532W84L876286)….”1 (Doc. 113-1) at 4, ¶ 20.
The Court subsequently entered summary judgment in Defendant’s favor on Plaintiff’s
claims based on a 2000 Wabash DVCV semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W1YL629228, as alleged in
the Complaint, and dismissed those claims with prejudice. (Docs. 117 and 118). The Court,
however, declined to enter summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims based on a 2004 Wabash
DVCV semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W84L876286, because those claims were not before the Court.
(Doc. 117). Nonetheless, the Court determined that the admissible evidence and reasonable
inferences from that evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, did not definitely
demonstrate that a 2004 Wabash DVCV semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W84L876286, was the
1

Plaintiff also seeks to amend the Complaint to modify her venue allegation. Defendant does
not oppose that amendment.
2

subject semi-trailer. (Doc. 117). On the other hand, the Court determined that a genuine
question of material fact exists as to whether a 2004 Wabash semi-trailer with a partial VIN
876286 was the subject semi-trailer. (Doc. 117). See (Doc. 108-1) at 2 (tow company invoice
indicating that subject semi-trailer towed from accident was 2004 Wabash semi-trailer with
partial VIN 876286).
III. Discussion
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing
party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Rule 15(a)(2) makes explicit that “[t]he court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The purpose of Rule
15(a)(2) is to provide litigants “the maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its
merits rather than on procedural niceties.” Hardin v. Manitowoc-Forsythe Corp., 691 F.2d 449,
456 (10th Cir. 1982). “Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of
undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” Frank v. U.S. West,
Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365-66 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Here, Defendant argues that the
Court should deny the Motion to Amend on the bases of futility and prejudice.
A. Futility
Defendant contends that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to
allege that either a 2000 Wabash DVCV semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W1YL629228, or a 2004
DVCV Wabash semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W84L876286, was the subject semi-trailer.
Defendant makes this contention based on its summary judgment arguments. See Anderson v.
Suiters, 499 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that “proposed amendment is futile if the
complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal” (citation omitted)). Since the Court

3

dismissed Plaintiff’s claims based on a 2000 Wabash DVCV semi-trailer, VIN
1JJV532W1YL629228, any attempt by Plaintiff to continue to bring those claims in an amended
Complaint is futile. See Butchard v. Cty. of Dona Ana, 287 F.R.D. 666, 670 (D.N.M. 2012)
(denying leave to amend as futile when motion to amend seeks to include previously dismissed
claims). Thus, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to allege that a 2000
Wabash DVCV semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W1YL629228, was the subject semi-trailer.
Although the Court declined to grant summary judgment on the claims based on a 2004
DVCV Wabash semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W84L876286, the Court concluded that in a summary
judgment context the evidence did not support those claims. If Plaintiff were to bring those
claims in an amended Complaint, they would be subject to summary judgment for that reason.
Accordingly, it is futile for Plaintiff to bring claims based on a 2004 DVCV Wabash semi-trailer,
VIN 1JJV532W84L876286. The Court, therefore, will not allow Plaintiff to amend the
Complaint to allege that a 2004 DVCV Wabash semi-trailer, VIN 1JJV532W84L876286, was
the subject semi-trailer.
In contrast to the above claims, the Court found that a genuine issue of material fact
exists as to claims based on a 2004 Wabash semi-trailer with a partial VIN 876286.
Consequently, those claims would not be subject to summary judgment. It follows then that it is
not futile for Plaintiff to allege that a 2004 Wabash semi-trailer with a partial VIN 876286 was
the subject semi-trailer.
B. Prejudice
Defendant further argues that allowing Plaintiff to amend the Complaint would prejudice
it by unfairly placing the burden on Defendant to prove it did not manufacture the subject semitrailer. Defendant explains that Plaintiff’s failure to preserve the subject semi-trailer and obtain

4

the VIN from the subject semi-trailer shifts the burden of proving who manufactured the subject
semi-trailer from Plaintiff to Defendant. Plaintiff, however, has come forward with undisputed
documentary evidence, a tow company invoice, that Defendant manufactured the subject semitrailer, a 2004 Wabash semi-trailer with a partial VIN 876286. Moreover, Defendant admits in
its response that none of its semi-trailers have side impact guards, “like every other trailer ever
manufactured by anyone….” (Doc. 114) at 1. In light of that admission and considering the
purpose of a complaint, to allege a plausible claim, it does not matter at this stage of the litigation
that Plaintiff could establish only a partial VIN for the subject semi-trailer as long as Plaintiff has
documentary evidence that Wabash manufactured the subject semi-trailer, which she does. See
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (holding that a plaintiff must allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim of relief to survive Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss). In view of Plaintiff’s documentary evidence and Defendant’s admission about the state
of its semi-trailers as well as the principle that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend]
when justice so requires,” Defendant will not be prejudiced if Plaintiff amends the Complaint to
allege that a 2004 Wabash semi-trailer with a partial VIN 876286 was the subject semi-trailer.
Hence, the Court will grant the Motion to Amend to permit Plaintiff to allege that a 2004
Wabash semi-trailer with a partial VIN 876286 was the subject semi-trailer.2
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Revised Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 113) is granted in that
1. Plaintiff may amend the Complaint regarding the venue allegation;
2. Plaintiff may amend the Complaint to allege that the subject semi-trailer was a 2004
Wabash semi-trailer with a partial VIN 876286; and
The Court will separately address Defendant’s concerns about spoliation when it decides the
motion to dismiss for spoliation.
2

5

3. Plaintiff must file her amended Complaint no later than seven days from the date of
the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6