Case ID: frd_22/html/0333-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEAHY, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ashby Lee BIEDLER v. Henry A. HURST and Henry A. Hurst, Jr.
    Civ. A. No. 20185.
    United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.
    Sept. 3, 1958.
    
      Tom P. Monteverde, Philadelphia, Pa. (Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis), Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
    Francis W. Sullivan and Edwin Barnet, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
   LEAHY, District Judge.

1. Plaintiff has a new theory for recovery. He wants to amend his complaint. Rule 15 of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., says he should. Also Moore agrees. F.R. 15 (c) abolishes any defense of intervening statute of limitations between amendments to pleadings. Moreover, it is valid for a litigant to change his theory of recovery. Delay in amendment hardly works prejudice.

2. The proposed amendments do not involve validity of the asserted claim. Here the proposed amendment shows, it is said, an agreement involving an usurious demand. Courts have rejected such arguments.

3. If plaintiff wants to amend he should be allowed to.

An appropriate order should be submitted. 
      
      . Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., D.C., 15 F.R.D. 354, affirmed 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 714, 59 A.L.R.2d 159; Cravatts v. Klozo Fastener Corp., D.C., 15 F.R.D. 12; Naamloze Vennootschap Suikerfabriek “Wono-Aseh” v. Chase National Bank, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 261. Look at Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 546.
     
      
      . 3 Moore’s Fed.Practice, p. 828.
     
      
      . See Copeland Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp., 5 Cir., 199 F.2d 566; Green v. Walsh, D.C., 21 F.R.D. 15; Batkiewicz v. Seas Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 53 F.Supp. 802.
     
      
      . Busam Motor Sales v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 469; Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 546.
     
      
      . Copeland Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp., supra; Heay v. Phillips, 9 Cir., 201 F.2d 220; Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., D.C.W.D.Pa., 101 F.Supp. 549. See, also, Stepp v. United States, 4 Cir., 207 F.2d 909; Armstrong Cork Co. v. Patterson-Sargent Co., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 534.