Opinion ID: 1817017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Would an amendment be unduly prejudicial to the defendants?

Text: In Red Enterprises, Inc. v. Peashooter, Inc., 455 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1984), quoting from Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222, 226 (1962), this Court said: ... Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires; this mandate is to be heeded ... if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason  such as ... undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.  the leave should, as the rules require, be freely given. (Emphasis Added). 455 So.2d at 795. The Parkers say that because the defendants were aware of the allegations of false arrest and false imprisonment contained in their original petition, and since a malicious prosecution action would require proving the conduct set forth in the original complaint, there would be no undue prejudice to the defendants if leave were granted. This reasoning totally ignores the fact that false arrest and malicious prosecution are separate and distinct causes of action which are comprised of entirely different elements. To allege one by no means implies the other. Allowing the Parkers to circumvent the one year statute of limitations at the defendants' expense would be unduly prejudicial and justice does not require that leave be given in the current situation.