Opinion ID: 2535415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Barry's motion for leave to amend his complaint.

Text: ¶ 19. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to amend his or her complaint with leave of court, and notes that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. M.R.C.P. 15(a). [I]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a 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 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. Webb v. Braswell, 930 So.2d 387, 393 (Miss.2006) (quoting Moeller v. Am. Guar. and Liab. Ins. Co., 812 So.2d 953, 962 (Miss.2002) (citations omitted)). Also, [t]his Court does not view lack of diligence as a compelling reason to amend. Id. at 395. Applications to amend the pleadings should be prompt and not the result of lack of diligence. Id. (citing Harris v. Miss. Valley State Univ., 873 So.2d 970, 991 (Miss.2004)). If a party has had ample opportunity and time to amend its complaint, and has offered no justification for why it did not do so, this Court generally will affirm the trial court's disallowance of an amendment. Id.; see also ( Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So.2d 1206, 1219 (Miss.2001)). Motions for leave to amend complaint are left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Church v. Massey, 697 So.2d 407, 413 (Miss.1997) (quoting McCarty v. Kellum, 667 So.2d 1277, 1283 (Miss.1995) (quoting Frank v. Dore, 635 So.2d 1369, 1375 (Miss. 1994))). This Court reviews such determinations under an abuse of discretion standard and unless convinced that the trial judge abused his discretion, we are without authority to reverse. Id. ¶ 20. Here, Barry filed his initial complaint on August 17, 2001, and sought leave to file an amended complaint three years later, on August 31, 2004. The only variance between the two complaints was the addition of a demand for punitive damages in the proposed amended complaint. Barry's argument rests simply on the fact that the rule says leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. M.R.C.P. 15(a). Barry has offered no reason for his failure to plead punitive damages in his initial complaint and for waiting three years to amend his complaint to include the demand for punitive damages. Thus, Barry effectively has conceded his lack of diligence in failing to plead punitive damages in the initial complaint. Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Barry the right to amend his complaint.