Opinion ID: 200812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of time-bar defense

Text: 15 The González family has also argued that HIMA waived the affirmative defense of untimeliness by failing to raise that defense in its answer. HIMA, in conjunction with Dr. López, based its motion for summary judgment on the defense of untimeliness. The proper approach to González's claim is, accordingly, to ask whether it was within the district court's discretion to accept the defense raised in the summary judgment motion as an amendment to the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). 6 See 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1278, at 494 (2d ed.1990). We normally review such an appeal for abuse of discretion alone. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court); see also Watson v. Deaconess Waltham Hosp., 298 F.3d 102, 109 (1st Cir.2002). If, however, leave to amend is not sought until after discovery has closed and a summary judgment motion has been docketed, the proposed amendment must be not only theoretically viable but also solidly grounded in the record.... Deaconess Waltham Hosp., 298 F.3d at 109 (quoting Hatch v. Dep't of Children, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir.2001)). 16 An untimeliness defense is plainly supported by the record. Therefore, we must simply review for abuse of discretion. Rule 15(a) instructs that leave [to amend the pleadings] shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). In the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be `freely given.' Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)). 17 The González family was put on notice that they would have to reckon with the defense of their action's untimeliness by Dr. López's answer on December 31, 2001. Absent any showing of bad faith on HIMA's part, and there is none, we have no difficulty — despite the irony — finding the district court acted within its discretion in accepting HIMA's late entry of the untimeliness defense. See In re Cumberland Farms, Inc., 284 F.3d 216, 226 (1st Cir. 2002) (Amendment may be permitted, for example, where the opposing party already had notice of the defense through some means other than the pleadings, or would not have benefitted from advance notice in any event — in other words, where the delay was harmless.).