Fields v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 95

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting 77 Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 61 ) is stricken to permit Defendant to re-file a summary judgment motion which includes the FSAA claim. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARRYL E. FIELDS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendant.

Case No. CIV-16-213-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Amended Complaint (Docket Entry #77).

Plaintiff

seeks leave of court to file an Amended Complaint to add a claim
under

the

Federal

Safety

Appliance

Act

(“FSAA”).

Plaintiff

initiated this action on May 26, 2016, alleging that he was injured
while working for Defendant in attempting to change out a knuckle
on

a

train.

Plaintiff

brought

an

Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”).

action

under

the

Federal

Among the allegations of

negligence within the Complaint was an assertion that “Defendant
violated one or more of the statutory provisions set forth in the
applicable Code of Federal Regulations.”1
Defendant’s answer included three affirmative defenses which
would be applicable to an FSAA claim.

1 Complaint filed May 26, 2016 at ¶ 7(k).

1

Defendant stated

N.
The equipment Plaintiff alleges to have
not been reasonably safe was no “in use” on
the railroad within the meaning of the Federal
Safety Appliance Act or other applicable law.
*

*

*

T.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or
preempted by the Locomotive Safety Appliance
Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq.
U.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or
preempted by the regulations promulgated by
the Federal Railroad Administration found in
Part 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.2

On October 14, 2019, Plaintiff expressly raised the FSAA as
a basis for recovery in responding to Defendant’s summary judgment
motion, noting that he need not prove negligence to recover under
the strict liability rubric of the FSAA.3

In its reply, Defendant

challenged Plaintiff’s ability to raise the FSAA claim, contending
that he had not referenced the strict liability claim in the three
years that the case had been pending.

It claims prejudice because

it would have
conducted additional and different discovery
had Plaintiff plead or pursued an FSAA claim
at any prior point in this suit. Neither side
hired a mechanical expert to address this
theory or address the causation between the
knuckle break and Plaintiff’s alleged injury.
2

Defendant’s Answer filed July 7, 2016, pp. 4-5.

3 Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment filed October 14, 2019, pp. 15-18.

2

Allowing Plaintiff to proceed would gravely
prejudice BNSF here because it would deprive
BNSF of any opportunity to conduct discovery
in opposition to this claim where Plaintiff
has only raised this claim after the close of
discovery.4

Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to amend the Complaint
“[t]o avoid confusion at trial” by including a Count II in the
Amended Complaint for a violation of the FSAA.

Plaintiff further

argues that Defendant’s expert witness referenced the knuckle
breaking in his report and the applicable federal regulations.
This Court begins from the premise that amendments “shall be
freely given when justice so requires.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

The right to amend is only restricted when it occurs after 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.”
v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993).

Frank

Defendant

primarily argues that Plaintiff unduly delayed in requesting the
amendment and to allow the inclusion of the FSAA claim would result
in undue prejudice.
The Tenth Circuit has recognized that “[l]ateness does not of
itself justify the denial of the amendment.”

Minter v. Prime

4 Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed November
4, 2019, p. 5

3

Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1205 (10th Cir. 2006) quoting R.E.B.,
Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 525 F.2d 749, 751 (10th Cir. 1975).
The

determination

of

timeliness

turns

on

whether

the

party

requesting the amendment “has no adequate explanation for the
delay.” Id. at 1206 quoting Frank v. U.S. West, 3 F.3d 1357, 1365–
66 (10th Cir. 1993).

While the facts in the Minter case are

somewhat convoluted and differ greatly from the facts of this case
in the manner and culpability of the parties in the delay in filing
an amendment, the delay was not considered “undue” when “[t]he
record shows that the plaintiff delayed in asserting the alteration
product

liability

claim

against

Prime

Equipment

because

he

believed it was already fairly encompassed by his pleadings.”
Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff in the case before this Court also believed that the
claim had been asserted and that Defendant was aware of the claim
because of the affirmative defenses pertaining to the FSAA claim
contained in the Answer.

This Court in no way condones Plaintiff’s

considerable delay in attempting to “clarify” the Complaint.

It

should be noted that much of the time for the extended pendency of
this case can be attributed to joint requests for extensions and
the stay imposed to permit Plaintiff to reach maximum medical
improvement.

The delay in expressly asserting the FSAA claim,

4

however, will not be found to be “undue” due to the explanation
provided.
Defendant also contends it will be prejudiced should the
amendment of the Complaint be allowed.

“Courts typically find

prejudice only when the amendment unfairly affects the defendants
‘in terms of preparing their defense to the amendment.’”

Id. at

1208 quoting Patton v. Guyer, 443 F.2d 79, 86 (10th Cir. 1971).
If Defendant were required to move forward to trial without
allowing additional discovery and time to develop their defense to
the FSAA claim, the prejudice would be patent.

However, this

Court has granted Defendant as much time as it deems it requires
to fully set out its defense to the additional claim.

This

extension should alleviate any resulting prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint (Docket Entry #77) is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the discussions
at

the

telephonic

Status

Conference,

Defendant’s

Motion

for

Summary Judgment (Docket Entry #61) is STRICKEN to permit Defendant
to re-file a summary judgment motion which includes the FSAA claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2020.

KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5