Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01658/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01658-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 08cv1658

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTA E. SHEEHAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1658-IEG (POR)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 12.]

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Marta Sheehan’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file

a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 12.) Defendant United States of America (“Defendant” or

“United States”) has filed an opposition, and Plaintiff has filed a reply. The Court finds the motion

suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons

stated herein, the Court grants the motion in part, and denies it in part.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2008 Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant under the Federal Tort Claims

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. (“FTCA”) (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s claim arises from injuries she

allegedly suffered as result of a bunionectomy she underwent at the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton

in Camp Pendleton, California. Plaintiff contends that as a result of the “negligence, carelessness, and

medical malpractice” of her treating physicians and other hospital staff during the procedure, she

suffered a major infection, cartilage damage, and loss of feeling in two toes. Defendant filed an

answer to the complaint on November 10, 2008. (Doc. No. 4.) 

Case 3:08-cv-01658-IEG-POR Document 17 Filed 05/07/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 08cv1658

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file a first amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add to the complaint: (1) her husband, Timothy J.

Sheehan as a plaintiff; (2) I-FLOW Corp. (“I-FLOW”) as a defendant; (3) a loss of consortium

claim on Mr. Sheehan’s behalf against the United States and I-FLOW; and (4) causes of action for

strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty against IFLOW only. 

I. Legal Standard

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, “a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or

by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (2009). “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason–such as undue

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies

by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance

of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.–the leave sought should, as the rules require, be

‘freely given.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). However, “not all of the factors merit equal

weight ... it is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest

weight.” Id. at 1052. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman

factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.”

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (emphasis in original). The decision of whether or not to

grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a) is within the sound discretion of the district court. 

California v. Neville Chem. Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).

II. Analysis

A. Addition of a Claim By Mr. Sheehan Against the United States

Defendant’s opposition brief focuses solely on Plaintiff’s request to add Mr. Sheehan as a

second plaintiff. Defendant argues Mr. Sheehan has not presented an administrative claim to the

Case 3:08-cv-01658-IEG-POR Document 17 Filed 05/07/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 “An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages

for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or

omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or

employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency

and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered

mail. The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed

shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for

purposes of this section.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (2009).

- 3 - 08cv1658

Department of the Navy, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a),1 prior to attempting to bring a claim

in district court against the United States. Plaintiff, in her reply brief, concedes that Mr. Sheehan

did not file the required administrative claim until April 22, 2009, and acknowledges “the law

requires that he wait six months to October 22, 2009” before bringing suit against the United

States. (Reply at 1.) In light of this circumstance, Plaintiff has requested the Court add Mr.

Sheehan as a plaintiff with respect to I-Flow only. 

The Court agrees it does not have jurisdiction over any claim by Mr. Sheehan against the

United States until he has exhausted his administrative remedies under the FTCA. Johnson v.

United States, 704 F.2d 1431, 1442 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Exhaustion of the claims procedures

established under the [FTCA] is a prerequisite to district court jurisdiction.”) Accordingly, the

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to the extent she seeks to add a

claim by Mr. Sheehan against the United States. The Court addresses Plaintiff’s request to add

Mr. Sheehan with respect to I-FLOW in Subsection B, infra. 

B. Plaintiff’s Other Requested Amendments

The touchstone of the Rule 15(a) inquiry is whether the proposed amendment would

unfairly prejudice the defendant. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. The party who opposes

amendment bears the burden of demonstrating the prejudice. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,

833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). In the present case, Defendant has not objected to: (1) the

addition of I-FLOW as a party; (2) Mr. Sheehan’s bringing a claim against I-FLOW; or (3) any of

the proposed claims Plaintiff wishes to bring against I-FLOW. As such, Defendant has made no

demonstration of prejudice with respect to these proposed amendments. Similarly, there has been

no strong showing Plaintiff has requested the amendments in bad faith, that Plaintiff has unduly

Case 3:08-cv-01658-IEG-POR Document 17 Filed 05/07/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

 This is Plaintiff’s first attempt to amend the complaint, so the Foman factor of “repeated

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments” is inapplicable here.

- 4 - 08cv1658

delayed in seeking to amend, or that the amendments would be futile.2 Absent these showings,

there is a presumption in favor of granting Plaintiff leave to amend under Rule 15(a). Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to

include: (1) I-FLOW as a defendant; (2) Mr. Sheehan as a plaintiff, with respect to the proposed

loss of consortium claim against I-FLOW only; and (3) causes of action for strict liability,

negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty against I-FLOW only. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a FAC. Plaintiff may amend her complaint to include: (1) I-FLOW as a defendant; (2) Mr.

Sheehan as a plaintiff, with respect to the proposed loss of consortium claim against I-FLOW

only; and (3) causes of action for strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, and

breach of express warranty against I-FLOW only. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to the

extent she seeks to add a claim by Mr. Sheehan against the United States. Plaintiff shall file the

amended complaint no later than Friday, May 15, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01658-IEG-POR Document 17 Filed 05/07/09 Page 4 of 4