Opinion ID: 2325365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harodite's Motion to Amend Its Complaint

Text: On April 23, 2009, plaintiff Harodite filed a motion to amend its complaint, stating that it was moving pursuant to the Rules 15(a) and (b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. [12] In support of its motion, Harodite stated that the proposed amendment was based on the April 20, 2009 deposition testimony of defendant's employees Roberta Benjamin and William Smith. Harodite's proposed amended complaint set forth three changes that are of significance to the instant appeal. First, the proposed amended complaint set forth factual allegations that were in addition to those already set forth in count four (negligence) and count five (defect in manufacture) of the original complaint. Harodite continued to allege that the gasket was too large for the space in which it was placed, while adding to those counts a new allegation viz., that the flange gasket was not centered when it was installed. Second, with respect to count six (defect in design), Harodite continued to maintain that the design was defective because the gasket was too large, and it then added an entirely new allegation viz., that the pre-heater failed to have a `fail-safe' system to prevent it from overheating. Third, Harodite sought to add an entirely new count, entitled Failure to Warn, alleging that [d]efendant failed to warn plaintiff of the foreseeable risks of the use of its product and failed to provide adequate instructions for the use of its product. On May 1, 2009, defendant Warren Electric filed an objection to Harodite's motion to amend its complaint. In its memorandum in support of that objection, Warren Electric asserted that Harodite's delay in amending its complaint caused the amendment to be both futile and unfairly prejudicial. Warren Electric summarized its objection as follows: The proposed amendmentbrought seven years after the product arrived at Harodite's facility, seven years after the May 4, 2002 oil spill at Harodite's Taunton, Massachusetts facilities, seven years after an inspection at Harodite's insurer's laboratory, four years after the lawsuit was filed, and mere days before the scheduled trial dateis futile and, additionally, unfairly prejudices Warren Electric. [13] Warren Electric contended that Rule 15(b) (dealing with issues that are tried by express or implied consent of the parties) was not applicable to and did not support plaintiff's motion. Warren Electric further argued that the motion was futile because the proposed amendments would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations; it contended that Massachusetts law would govern and that plaintiff's claims would therefore be subject to the Commonwealth's three-year or four-year statute of limitations, [14] as opposed to Rhode Island's ten-year statute of limitations. With respect to its contention that the proposed amendments would unfairly prejudice it, Warren Electric advanced a number of arguments. First, Warren Electric contended that defending against the new allegations set forth in the proposed amended complaint would be substantially burdensome. Warren Electric stated that it had been prepared to defend the case based upon Harodite's allegation that the gasket was too large whereas it was not prepared so close to trial to defend a case that contained newly articulated allegations relating to (1) the alignment of the gasket, (2) the lack of a fail safe system, and (3) the failure to warn. Warren Electric stated that, in view of the newness of these proposed further allegations, it would need to conduct discovery with respect to same and would potentially need to engage additional experts to address the newly minted allegations. Warren Electric also contended that Harodite could have moved to amend earlier because Harodite had access to all [the] information necessary to make these claims when it filed its original Complaint. More specifically, Warren Electric argued that Harodite knew what warnings and instructions Warren Electric provided when it received the oil heater in August of 2001; it also argued that Harodite knew prior to the oil spill that its employees wired around the preheater's circuitry   . Warren Electric also contended that [t]he alleged nonexistence of any `fail-safe' system was known to Harodite [from the time that] it received the oil heater in August of 2001. Finally, with respect to Harodite's new allegation that the gasket was not centered at the time of installation, it was Warren Electric's contention that information regarding that allegation would have been available to Harodite when the pre-heater was separated from the casing at the inspection in 2002. D