Hackl et al v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 5/27/09 granting 22 plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. (cc: all counsel) (nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________ T H E R E S E A. HACKL and RICHARD HACKL, P la in t iffs , and U N IT E D HEALTHCARE OF WISCONSIN, INC., In v o lu n ta ry Plaintiff, v. IC O N HEALTH & FITNESS, INC., SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY and ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, D e fe n d a n ts . ____________________________________________ Case No. 08-CV-871

ORDER
P la in tiffs Therese and Richard Hackl ("the Hackls") filed suit alleging a p e rs o n a l injury products liability action in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The d e fe n d a n ts , ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Sears Roebuck & Company, removed th e case to this court on October 15, 2008, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The d e fe n d a n ts filed an answer to the Hackls' complaint the same day. The Hackls now s e e k leave of the court to amend their complaint to add an involuntary plaintiff, Blue C ro s s Blue Shield of Wisconsin, and to add an additional defendant, Lexington In s u ra n c e Company. The court will grant this request. F e d e ra l Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to amend his or her c o m p la in t after the defendant has filed a responsive pleading if the defendant p ro v id e s written consent, or if the court grants leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

1 5 (a )(2). The court should "freely give leave when justice so requires." Id. Further, R u le 15 reflects a "liberal attitude" towards amendment of the complaint. See C a m p a n ia Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 848-49 (7th Cir. 2002). L e a v e to amend should be freely granted in the absence of any "apparent or d e c la re d reason." Barry Aviation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Mun. Airport Comm'n, 377 F .3 d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004). The liberal application of Rule 15 is based on the fe d e ra l rule policy of deciding cases on the merits. See id. T h e Hackls acknowledge that the court's March 2, 2009 deadline for a m e n d in g the pleadings has passed. However, the Hackls explain that the

in v o lu n ta ry plaintiff they seek to add, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin, has re c e n tly become their new insurance carrier and has paid some of Therese Hackl's m e d ic a l bills resulting from the injuries sustained in the subject incident. The Hackls fu r th e r explain that the defendant they seek to add, Lexington Insurance Company, is the product liability insurance carrier for defendant ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. T h o u g h the plaintiffs uncovered this fact during discovery responses received in late F e b r u a ry , they initially decided not to implead Lexington because ICON has a $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 self insured retention. However, the Hackls now seek to add Lexington a s a defendant because they do not possess the Lexington policy and do not know w h a t effect the coverage has if ICON becomes insolvent. The court finds that granting the Hackls leave to amend is appropriate in this c a s e . The current defendants have not opposed the Hackls' motion to amend.

-2-

F u rth e r, the addition of the proposed parties will allow all issues related to the p la in tiffs ' claims to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Therefore, the court w ill grant the Hackls' motion to amend the complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint (Docket # 2 2 ) be and the same is hereby GRANTED. D a te d at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 27th day of May, 2009. B Y THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-3-