Royce v. Wyeth et al
Filing
155
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 115 MOTION for leave to Amend the Complaint to the extent the plaintiff seeks to include a request for punitive damages, and granting to the extent that plaintiff seeks leave to update her name and address, and to delete references to her heart disease; directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint, if any, conforming with the directives of this order no later than 04/22/2011. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 4/13/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
LEAH ROYCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:04-0690
WYETH, d/b/a Wyeth, Inc.;
WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY; and
PFIZER, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is plaintiff Leah Royce’s motion for leave to
amend the complaint to make clear a prayer for punitive damages
and for other purposes, filed February 25, 2011.1
I.
Background
Plaintiff filed her complaint on July 7, 2004.
The
complaint does not include a prayer for punitive damages.
On October 26, 2004, this case was transferred to
multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.
While the action was pending
in the MDL court, the plaintiffs’ steering committee filed a
1
Plaintiff Rosemary Keffer contemporaneously filed a
similar motion for leave to amend in a related action before this
court, Keffer v. Wyeth, 2:04-692 (S.D. W. Va.).
master complaint and an amended master complaint, both of which
included prayers for punitive damages.2
The case was remanded to this court on April 13, 2010,
for the completion of discovery, pretrial activity, and trial.
On June 1, 2010, the court entered its scheduling order directing
that any amendments to the pleadings be submitted by June 30,
2010.
Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend her complaint to
include a request for punitive damages in her prayer for relief.
She contends that, based upon the complaints in the MDL
proceeding as well as in other related litigation, defendants
have been on notice of the punitive damage claim and supporting
allegations for years and therefore would not be prejudiced by
the amendment.
Defendants oppose the motion, asserting that the
proposed amendment is unsupported by good cause, untimely, and
prejudicial.
Plaintiff also moves to amend the complaint to update
her name and address, and to delete references to her deep vein
thrombosis (i.e., heart disease) since she is no longer pursuing
2
Regarding the legal significance of a master complaint,
“MDL courts have observed generally that a ‘master complaint
should not be given the same effect as an ordinary complaint.
Instead, it should be considered as only an administrative device
to aid efficiency and economy.’” In re Digitek Prods. Liab.
Litig., No. 08-01968, 2009 WL 2433468, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 3,
2009) (collecting MDL cases) (citations omitted).
2
claims arising out of that condition.
Defendants do not oppose
these amendments.
II.
Motion for Leave to Amend
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that
“a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave,” and directs courts to
“freely give leave when justice so requires.”
15(a)(2).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 16(b)(4), on the other hand, provides that “[a]
schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
In Nourison Rug Corp. v.
Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2008), our court of appeals
noted that a “tension” arises between Rules 15 and 16 when a
party seeks to amend a pleading after the scheduling order
deadline has passed.
Id. at 298.
The court resolved “the
conflict between these two provisions” as follows:
Given their heavy case loads, district courts require the
effective case management tools provided by Rule 16.
Therefore, after the deadlines provided by a scheduling
order have passed, the good cause standard must be
satisfied to justify leave to amend the pleadings. This
result is consistent with rulings of other circuits.
Id. (citing cases from the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,
and Eleventh Circuits).
Thus, because plaintiff seeks to amend
her complaint after the scheduling order deadline, she must
satisfy the Rule 16 “good cause” standard.
3
“Good cause” under Rule 16(b) is measured by the
movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the scheduling order’s
requirements.
Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709,
716 (8th Cir. 2008); Kassner v. 2nd Avenue Delicatessen Inc., 496
F.3d 229, 243 (2d Cir. 2007); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).3
“Another important
consideration for a district court deciding whether Rule 16’s
‘good cause’ standard is met is whether the opposing party will
suffer prejudice by virtue of the amendment.”
Leary v.
Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir. 2003).
Nevertheless,
“[a]lthough the existence or degree of prejudice to the party
opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny
a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s
reasons for seeking modification . . . If that party was not
diligent, the inquiry should end.”
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609;
Sherman, 532 F.3d at 717.
A.
Amendment Adding Request for Punitive Damages
Plaintiff has offered no reason for her failure to
include a request for punitive damages in her complaint filed in
3
As the Fourth Circuit has stated, albeit in an
unpublished decision, “Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard focuses
on the timeliness of the amendment and the reasons for its tardy
submission; the primary consideration is the diligence of the
moving party.” Montgomery v. Anne Arundel Cnty., Md., 182 Fed.
App’x 156, 162 (4th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
4
2004.
Most important, she has not explained why she did not file
a timely motion to amend her complaint by the scheduling order
deadline of June 30, 2010.
It appears to the court, then, that
she has not made the requisite showing of good cause.
Rather than explaining the reasons for the late
amendment, plaintiff’s motion focuses on the lack of prejudice
that would result to defendants.
While the addition of a late
request for punitive damages often will not unduly prejudice the
opposing party, the movant is not thereby relieved of the duty of
showing some measure of good cause.
Inasmuch as plaintiff offers no explanation for her
apparent lack of diligence,4 the court declines to grant her
leave to amend the complaint to include a request for punitive
damages.
B.
Other Requested Amendments
Plaintiff also moves to amend her complaint to update
her name and address, and to delete references to her heart
disease -- requests which defendants do not oppose.
4
Because
Plaintiff emphasizes that she has generally been
diligent in pursuing her claims and in meeting other scheduling
order deadlines. However, Rule 16 requires the court to consider
the movant’s reasons for missing the particular deadline for
amending the pleadings rather than the movant’s overall
diligence.
5
these amendments seek only to update the pleading with subsequent
events and do not implicate the exercise of diligence, the Rule
16 “good cause” standard is met.
And since defendants consent to
the amendments, the requirements of Rule 15(b) are satisfied as
well.
The court accordingly grants plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint to reflect these subsequent developments.
III.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
That plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the
complaint be, and it hereby is, denied to the extent
the plaintiff seeks to include a request for punitive
damages.
2.
That plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the
complaint be, and it hereby is, granted to the extent
that plaintiff seeks leave to update her name and
address, and to delete references to her heart disease.
3.
That plaintiff be, and she hereby is, directed to file
an amended complaint, if any, conforming with the
directives of this order no later than April 22, 2011.
6
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written
opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented
parties.
DATED:
April 13, 2011
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
7
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?