Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-03444/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-03444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS

LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

01-3444

 /

MDL Docket No 04-1606 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Ernest-Wilhelm Reitschel moves for leave to

file an amended complaint pursuant to FRCP 15(a). Doc #51. 

After a responsive pleading has been filed, “leave to

amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to

the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates

undue delay.” Martinez v Newport Beach City, 125 F3d 777, 785 (9th

Cir 1997).

Defendant US Airways, Inc, makes much of the fact that

the original complaint was filed over four years ago. But the

lions’ share of the time between dismissal of the original

complaint in 2002 and the present motion can be attributed to (1)

an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, (2) a stay of that appeal pending

decision in a similar case and (3) a bankruptcy stay. In essence,

Case 3:01-cv-03444-VRW Document 54 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 litigation began afresh upon remand from the Ninth Circuit and

Reitschel’s motion for leave to amend followed not long thereafter. 

Indeed, Reitschel’s motion was filed one week after US Airways

filed its answer. See Doc #45.

 US Airways also suggests that it will be prejudiced

because allowing Reitschel to amend would allow him to overcome

summary judgment. But unlike most other cases still pending in

this litigation, there is no pending motion for summary judgment in

this individual action. The court therefore perceives no

prejudice. 

Reitschel’s motion for leave to amend is accordingly

GRANTED provided that Reitschel’s first amended complaint shall be

identical to that which he proposed. See Doc #339, Ex A.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:01-cv-03444-VRW Document 54 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2