2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-6-2009 

# N at i vid a d S a e z v

. Ge n Mtr C orp P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-1334

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Nat ivid a d S a ez v

. Ge n Mtr C orp " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2072. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2072NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 1334
N A T I V I D A D SA E Z ; M A R Y J O SA E Z , hi s w i fe, A pp el l ants .

v. GE NE RA L M OT OR S CO RP OR AT I ON; B U I C K M O T O R S C O R P. , A D i vi s i on of G ener al M o tors C o rpo rati o n d /b/a an d also k n o w n as B u ick M o tor C ars

( i n d i v i d u a l l y, j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y)

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 06- cv- 00206) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S tew a rt D a lze ll
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1 ( a)

on D ece m ber11, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E , SM I T H and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed J anuary06, 2009 )

O P I N I O N2

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: N at i vi dad Saez and hi s w i fe, M ary J oe Saez , have s ued G ener al M ot or s C orpor at i on and B ui ck M otors C o rpor at i on fordefe ct i ve pr oduct , br eac h of w arr anty , and negl i gence arisi ng fr om i nj ur i es N at i vi dad Saez s uffe r ed w hi l e l i ft i ng t he s eatoutof a Bui ck R endez vous . T he Saez es s i m ul t aneous l y s ued a l ocal deal er s hi p i n s t at e courtal l egi ng t he
s ame caus es of ac t i on. A ft ert he s t at e cour tdi s m i s s ed the Saez es ’ cl ai m s w i t h pr ej udi ce, t he D i s t r i ctC our tper m i t t ed def endant s t o amend t hei rans w ert o al l ege col l at er al es t oppel and t hen grant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent on t his basi s. T he S aezes app eal bo t h these ruli ng s. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i o n u n d er 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1332. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1291 and 1294. W e r evi ew a di s tr ict co u rt ’ s gr antof l eave t o fi l e an
a m e n d e d p le a d in g f

o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U rru ti a v. H

a rrisbu rg C o u n ty P o li ce D ep ’t , 91 F
. 3 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 7 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 6 )
. O u rr e v i e w o f a g r a n to f

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n ti s p l e n a r y. N at i onw i de Mut . I

ns . C o. v. R i l ey , 3 5 2 F
. 3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 6 n . 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. W e wi l l a f f i r m. Lea ve t o a mend “ s hall be fr e e l ygi ve n when j us t i c e s o r e qu i r e s . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 5 ( a )
. “ A m o n g th e g ro u n d s th a t c o u ld ju s tif ya d e n ia l o f

le a v e to a m e n d a re u n d u e d e l a y, bad fai t h, di l at or ym ot i ve, pr ej udi ce, and fut i l i ty . ” I n r e Burl i ngt on C oatFact or y Sec
. Li t ig. , 114 F. 3d 1410, 1434 ( 1997)
. T he Saez es cont end thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have f ound undue del ay , bad fa i t h, and pr ej udi ce beca us e defe ndant s coul d have moved t o amend ear l i er b u t w a ited u n til a f

ter th e c lo se o f

d isc o v e ry . T h e S a e z e s d id n o t, h o w e v e r, se e k lea v e to conductaddi t i onal di s covery aft er defe ndant s fi l ed t hei r m ot i on, and theyhave notexpl ai ned3

how s uch di s coveryw oul d have a f f ect ed def endant s ’ col l at er al es t oppel defe ns e. T he Saez es al s o cont end thatt he col l at er al es t oppel defe ns e i s m er i t l es s and, t hus , t hatamendm entw as fut i l e. Si nce w e w i l l al s o aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr ant of sum m ary j udgm ent on gr ounds of co l l at eral est op pel, w e rej ectt his con t enti on . A ccordi ng l y , t he D i stri ct C ou rt did not abuse i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng l eave t o amend. N ordo w e fi nd er r or i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr ant of s um m ary j udgm ent . A par tfr om the j u ri sd ict ion al all eg ati o n s an d the na m es of the pa rt ies, the S ae ze s’ claim s in state co u rt
w er e i dent i cal t o t hos e al l eged i n t he i ns t antact i on. T he s t at e courts peci fi cal l yhel d t hatt he
a lleg e d lyd e f

e c tiv e p ro d u c t co u ld n o t, a s a m a tter o f law , b e f o u n d d e f e c tiv e o r u n re a so n a b ly danger ous and thatno w ar ni ng w as nece s s aryabouti t s s hape, s i ze, orw ei ght
. T hi s hol di ng
w a s n o t li m it e d to th e p a rticu lar d e f e n d a n ts in sta te c o u rt, an d m u tu a lityo f p a rties is n o t a
re q u ir e m e n t f

o r c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. See P arkl an e H osi ery C o. v. Sh ore , 439 U
. S
. 322, 332–33 ( 1979)
. C ont r aryt o t he Saez es ’ as s er t i on, i t i s of no m om entt hatt he par al l el cas es
w er e di s m i s s ed atdi ffe r ents t ages s i nce a ful l and fa i roppor tuni t yt o l it igate w as aff or ded i n b o th
. See Res t a t e ment ( Se c on d) of J ud gmen t s § 27 c mt . d ( 19 82 )
. Fi na l l y , t he Saeze s’ pr opos ed expe r topi ni on evi dence r el at es s ol el y t o a fa ctual i s s ue— w hethert he pr oductw as d e f e c tiv e
— w h ile th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n w a s b a se d so lelyo n th e p u re ly leg a l p rin c ip le of col l at er al es t oppel ; t he opi ni on evi dence notcons i der ed byt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt w as t hus i r r el evantt o t he di s pos i t i on. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.