Opinion ID: 413331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Amendment of Answer to Assert Limitations Defense

Text: 26 The District Court did not err when it permitted defendants to amend their answers to assert the Mitchell statute of limitations defense. The scope of this Court's review of the District Court's decision to permit the Postal Service to amend its Answer is narrow. Review is limited to the question of whether the District Court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment. Hayden v. Ford Motor Company, 497 F.2d 1292 (6th Cir.1974). 27 Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the amendment of pleadings. The Rule provides, in pertinent part, that: 28 [A] party may amend his pleadings only by leave of court or by written consent of an adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. (emphasis added). 29 This Court, as well as others, has freely allowed the amendment of pleadings in the absence of substantial prejudice to the opposing party. Estes v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 636 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir.1980); Hageman v. Signal L.P. Gas, Inc., 486 F.2d 479 (6th Cir.1973); Head v. Timken Roller Bearing, 486 F.2d 870 (6th Cir.1973). Our review of the record indicates that defendants asserted the Mitchell statute of limitations defense shortly after Mitchell was decided. We do not find present here the kind of prejudice that prevents amendment, and therefore we do not find that the District Court erred in permitting the amendment raising the limitations defense.