Opinion ID: 72657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proposed Amendment to Complaint

Text: 42 TRS filed its complaint against DMSI on October 11, 1991. DMSI answered on February 14, 1992. Discovery in this case ended on January 4, 1993. On January 5, 1993, TRS filed under seal a motion seeking to amend its complaint to add an additional § 1 tying claim alleging that Dornier lithotripter spare parts are the tying product and Dornier lithotripter servicing is the tied product. 6 In an April 19, 1993, order, Judge Fawsett denied this motion, indicating that TRS had delayed unduly in presenting the motion. 7 Judge Fawsett explained that TRS had argued to her that DMSI had been on notice for several months that TRS intended to add the new tying claim. However, Judge Fawsett reasoned that if DMSI had had such notice for months, then TRS must also have known for several months that the new tying claim existed, yet failed to make a motion to amend earlier. Judge Fawsett explained that if the motion to amend were granted, the trial, which at that time was scheduled for June 1993, would almost certainly be delayed. 43 After this case had been transferred to Judge Bechtle, TRS filed a renewed motion to amend its complaint. Judge Bechtle also denied this motion. 44 Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave [to amend a party's pleading] shall be freely given when justice so requires. In defining the scope of Rule 15(a), the Supreme Court has explained that 45 [i]n 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 amendment, etc.--the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given. 46 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). See also Jameson v. Arrow Co., 75 F.3d 1528, 1534-35 (11th Cir.1996); Hargett v. Valley Fed. Sav. Bank, 60 F.3d 754, 761 (11th Cir.1995). We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. at 230; Jameson, 75 F.3d at 1534. 47 In its brief to this court, TRS argued that DMSI was on notice by September 1992 that TRS intended to propose the new tying claim amendment. However, as Judge Fawsett observed, if DMSI was on notice of the possibility of this claim in September 1992, so too was TRS. TRS nonetheless inexplicably waited until January 5, 1993, after discovery was completed, to make its motion to add a new substantive claim. 8 This proposed new claim would have increased the complexity of an already complex lawsuit, and probably would have required that discovery be reopened. Although ordinarily leave to amend should be freely given, dual concerns that TRS delayed unduly and that the proposed amendment would have unduly prejudiced DMSI lead us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying TRS's motion to amend. 48