Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04896/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04896-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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:

04-4896

 /

MDL Docket No 04-1606 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiffs Olive and James Menditto move for leave to

amend their complaint pursuant to FRCP 15(a). Doc #6. 

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 British Airways, Ltd, opposes on the ground

that the Mendittos are attempting to “plead around” British

Airways’ pending motion for summary judgment. See Doc #294 (04-

1606). After reviewing the Mendittos’ original complaint, however,

it is clear they have already asserted legal theories beyond the

scope of the pending summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the

Case 3:04-cv-04896-VRW Document 13 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

court fails to see how British Airways would be prejudiced by

allowing plaintiffs leave to amend. Regardless whether leave to

amend is granted or denied, the Mendittos’ claims will not be fully

adjudicated even if British Airways’ pending summary judgment

motion is granted. And given that all other aspects of this

litigation have been stayed pending the motions for summary

judgment, the court also fails to see how allowing amendment would

create delay. 

No doubt the Mendittos’ motion could have been more

timely, but in the absence of any real prejudice or risk of delay,

the Mendittos’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED provided that

the Mendittos’ first amended complaint shall be identical to that

which they proposed. See Doc #7, Ex A.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04896-VRW Document 13 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2