Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01588/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01588-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barbara McConnell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Breg, Inc., a California Corporation; and IFlow Corporation, a Delaware

Corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-01588-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 141). Plaintiff

seeks to amend her complaint to (1) add a prayer for punitive damages; (2) remove the civil

conspiracy cause of action; and (3) strike references in the complaint to DJO, Inc. and DJO,

LLC, former defendants to this action. Defendant I-Flow corporation has not opposed the

motion. Defendant Breg, Inc. (hereinafter “Breg”), does not oppose amendment to remove

the civil conspiracy cause of action or references to the former parties, but it does oppose

amendment to add a prayer for punitive damages.

Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In determining whether to allow amendment, the Court considers

whether the motion to amend is made in bad faith, for the purpose of causing undue delay,

would cause prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile. See Griggs v. Pace Am.

Case 2:10-cv-01588-NVW Document 147 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Breg does not claim that the motion is made

in bad faith, to cause undue delay, or would cause it prejudice; rather, it claims that allowing

Plaintiff to amend her complaint to include a prayer for punitive damages would be futile

because “there is no factual predicate to support a claim for [punitive] damages against

Breg.” (Doc. 146 at 3.) As support for this contention, Breg claims that Plaintiff’s

allegations relating to Defendants’ evil mind are based on conclusory statements, and that

the complaint does not allege specific acts of wrongdoing against each defendant

individually.

Contrary to Breg’s assertions, the Court finds that allowing amendment in these

circumstances would not be futile. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint in fact lists

several specific allegations to support her claim that Defendants acted with an evil mind,

including that Defendants (1) “decided to market their pain pumps for intra-articular use with

the knowledge that the FDA refused . . . to clear their pain pumps for this very use[,]” (2)

intentionally failed to disclose that their pain pumps were not FDA cleared for intra-articular

uses; and (3) suppressed information that their pain pumps might cause chondrolysis. These

allegations are specifically related to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants acted with an evil

mind, in support of a prayer for punitive damages, and are accordingly more than sufficient

to overcome Breg’s argument that amending Plaintiff’s complaint would be futile.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc.

141) is granted. Plaintiff shall file and serve its amended complaint on all parties in

accordance with LRCiv. 15.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01588-NVW Document 147 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2