Court Dismisses Case Where Plaintiff Attempted to File a Second Amended Complaint Long After Deadline To Do So

In the case of Coble v. Edrington, No. 2024-CV-00521 (C.P. Dauph. Co. Feb. 13, 2026 Engle, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections filed against a Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to obey the court ordered deadline within which to file the Second Amended Complaint.

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of a breach of contract claim.

Under an Order dated April 18, 2025, the court had granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff did not file their Second Amended Complaint until October 6, 2025, which was approximately 151 days after the court ordered deadline.  Also, the Second Amended Complaint was filed only after the Defendant moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.

After the Second Amended Complaint was filed, the Defendant then responded with various Preliminary Objections, which included a challenge to the timeliness of the pleadings.

The court sustained the Preliminary Objection under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(e) relative to the untimeliness of the Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments and emphasized that the parties are not able to extend court-imposed deadlines without court approval.

The court otherwise noted that a trial court may dismiss an untimely Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with a court ordered deadline. The court noted that, while actual prejudice may be a factor in some cases, it is not always required, particularly when the delay is significant and unjustified.

Here, the court found that the delay of approximately 151 days after the court ordered deadline for the filing of an Amended Complaint was excessive and unjustified. As such, their Preliminary Objection was sustained and the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Stephen M. Hickey of the York, PA law firm of Griffith, Lerman, Lutz & Schieb for bringing this decision to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Markus Winkler on www.unsplash.com.

Federal Court Addresses Request to Amend Complaint in a UIM Bad Faith Claim

In the case of Binotto v. Geico, No. 3:22-CV-210 (W.D. Pa. May 30, 2025 Haines, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint in order to allege bad faith against the carrier.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs had previously filed a Second Amended Complaint which included allegations of bad faith against Geico. However, the Plaintiffs opted to withdraw that Second Amended Complaint under an indication that they thought that the case would settle with the resolution of the summary judgment proceedings. 

When the case did not settle after the court’s resolution of the summary judgment motions, the Plaintiffs then presented this Motion for Leave of Court to File a Third Amended Complaint in order to put the bad faith claim back into play.

The court reviewed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which sets out the standard for granting leave to amend a Complaint when a responsive pleading has already been served. Under that rule, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or with leave of court. The rule additionally states that the court should freely give leave of court when justice so requires.

However, the court in this matter noted that the policy favoring liberal amendments is not without bounds. The decision on whether to grant or deny a Motion for Leave to Amend still rests within the sound discretion of the district court.

The court noted that a federal district court may deny leave to amend a Complaint where it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party.

In this case, the court found that there is no prejudice to the Defendant by the proposed Third Amended Complaint. The court additionally found that, while the Motion for Leave was filed late in the litigation, the court did not find that the Plaintiff acted with any undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives. The court also noted that the trial date was still several months away.

Accordingly, the court addressed the element of whether the allowance of an amendment would be futile under the case presented. In this regard, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant carrier never had any intention of fairly and in good faith attempting to negotiate a settlement.

Under the facts presented in this case, the court found that the Defendant carrier’s delay in offering its settlement amount until the summary judgment proceedings were resolved and the Defendant carrier’s subsequent low settlement offer did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of bad faith in any event.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to investigate, allegedly misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to make a reasonable offer in failing to explain the offer. The court found that there were no facts presented in the proposed Third Amended Complaint to support those inferences drawn by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph A. Hudock, Jr. of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

How To Correct The Wrong Name of a Party As Listed in a Writ of Summons

 In the case of Surefire Dividend Capture, L.P. v. The PNC Fin. Serv. Group, Inc., No. 1222 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. March 10, 2025 Olson, J., Murray, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court vacated a trial court’s Order permitting an amendment to a Writ of Summons to change the name of the Defendant. The court concluded that, Pa. R.C.P. 1033, by its expressed terms, applied only to pleadings and a Writ of Summons was not a pleading under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1017.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs began a lawsuit against certain Defendants. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033 to amend their Writ of Summons to correct the name of one of the Defendants.

Rule 1033(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or by leave of court, may at any time change the form of action, add a person as a party, correct the name of the party, or otherwise amend the pleading.”

In this case, the court emphasized that the Plaintiffs had not yet filed a Complaint.

The Defendants opposed the motion claiming that the rule did not allow a party to amend a Writ of Summons and thereby add an entirely new party as a Defendant.

The Superior Court ruled the pertinent Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that a Writ of Summons is not a pleading.

The court also noted that Rule 1033 was amended in 2014 such that it no longer allowed, and could no longer be construed to permit, the correction of the name of a party in a Writ of Summons.

The Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff’s objective could be accomplished under Pa. R.C.P. 229 by discontinuing the current action and beginning a new lawsuit. The court also noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1033, the Plaintiff could amend the caption of a later pleading by agreement of the party or by leave of court. It was also noted that the Plaintiff could, under Pa. R.C.P. 2232, seek leaving of court for an Order to join a Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (March 25, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Poppy Thomas Hill on www.pexels.com.

Any Way You Slice It, New Causes of Action Cannot Be Stated Via Amendment to Complaint After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

In the case of Slice, Slice Baby, LLC v. Armetta, No. 2019-CV-153 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 8, 2024, Nealon, J.), the court addressed various issues in a case involving a dispute over issues regarding a lease agreement involving a pizza restaurant.

Among the issues addressed by the court was whether a Plaintiff may secure leave of court to amend the Complaint to assert new causes of action after the statute of limitations on the claims presented have expired.

In this case, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave of court to amend the Complaint to assert five new causes of action and to include four additional Defendants.

Judge Nealon reviewed the case and the applicable statute of limitations and ruled that the limitations period had expired on four of the five new claims and, as such, those claims were not permitted. The court did allow the Plaintiff to assert a new cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against one additional Defendant.

Relative to the Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment of Non Pros based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to litigate this action with reasonable promptitude, after reviewing the record before him, Judge Nealon noted that the Defendant had not identified any prejudice that the Defendant had suffered as a result of the Plaintiff’s lack of reasonable diligence in pushing this litigation ahead. As such, the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment for Non Pros was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

CORRECTED LINK: Trial Court Upholds Right of Plaintiff To Amend Complaint At Trial To Add Claims of Recklessness and Punitive Damages

 

Here is the corrected LINK for the case of Vanston v. Green Ridge Health Care Group, LLC, No. 2019-CV-6227 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 7, 2023 Munley, Julia, J.), which was highlighted here on Tort Talk yesterday.  The case involved the Court's allowance of an amendment to a Complaint at trial to add claims of recklessness and punitive damages.

Sorry for any confusion that may have been caused.

Trial Court Upholds Right of Plaintiff To Amend Complaint At Trial To Add Claims of Recklessness and Punitive Damages

In the case of Vanston v. Green Ridge Health Care Group, LLC, No. 2019-CV-6227 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 7, 2023 Munley, Julia, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for an Amendment of an Order for the purpose of seeking an interlocutory appeal.  This request was made relative to the trial court’s underlying Order that had allowed an amendment to the Plaintiff’s Complaint at a trial of a negligence case involving a nursing home to add a claim of recklessness and a claim for punitive damages after the completion of the testimony of certain Defendants and even though the statute of limitations had previously expired.

In this regard, Judge Munley found that there were sufficient facts pled in the original Complaint such that the court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the claims of recklessness and punitive damages were barred by the statute of limitations.

In her decision, Judge Munley cited to previous decisions by her colleague on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Terrence R. Nealon, who had previously ruled that amendments to a Complaint are permitted after the running of the statute of limitations so long as no new causes of action are pled.

Judge Julia Munley
Lackawanna County

In this regard, Judge Munley noted that recklessness is considered an aggravated form of negligence and not a new cause of action. She also noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a request for punitive damages does not constitute a cause of action in and of itself. Rather, a request for punitive damages is merely incidental to an underlying cause of action.

Accordingly, Judge Munley ruled that an amendment to a Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages after the statute of limitations has run is permissible where the main operative facts to support such a claim have been previously alleged in the original Complaint.

Judge Munley noted that a decision was further supported by the fact that the Plaintiffs alleged facts indicative of reckless conduct in the original Complaint.  The Court pointed to those cases in which it has been held that recklessness can be pled in any case whatsoever, regardless of the facts pled.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Jamie Anzalone and Attorney Kelly Ciravolo of Anzalone Law Offices in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

Amendment To Add New Claim To Med Mal Case Not Allowed After Statute of Limitations Had Expired

In the case of Kersey v. Pisano, No. 798 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. March 7, 2023 Sullivan, J., Panella, P.J., Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Sullivan, J.)[Non-Precedential], the court affirmed in part and reversed in part relative to post-trial motions filed in a medical malpractice case after a verdict was entered in favor of a Plaintiff.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that, where the Plaintiff’s Complaint made allegations solely about prostate cancer, it was an error by the trial court to allow an amendment of the Complaint so as to permit evidence to be presented at trial on a claim for liver cancer, where that claim was only asserted after the two (2) year statute of limitations had run.

The court reaffirmed the general rule that amendments to a Complaint to add new causes of action after the statute of limitations is not permitted.

The court additionally noted that, where an expert report includes a new cause of action on behalf of a Plaintiff, the trial court may not permit the Plaintiff to introduce that opinion after the applicable statute of limitations has run.

The court found that there was no possible reading of the Complaint that could support a claim that the allegations of liver cancer were contained therein so as to allow the desired amendment or claims to proceed.

In this matter, because the trial court utilized a special verdict questionnaire that allowed the jury to reach separate verdicts for the two (2) types of cancer, only the jury verdict relative to the claim of medical malpractice related to the liver cancer would be reversed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia law office of the Reed Smith law firm.

Case Dismissed Due To Untimely Filed Amended Complaint Being Found to Be a Legal Nullity

In the non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Tabb v. Thomas, No. 72 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. March 2, 2023 Panella, P.J., Stabile, J. and King, J.) (Mem. Op. by Panella, P.J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the ability of a Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint after the time allowable for the same has expired. 

In this case, which arose out of a slip and fall matter, the Plaintiff started the lawsuit with a Writ of Summons and then filed a Complaint. The Defendant responded with Preliminary Objections. When the Plaintiff did not reply to the Preliminary Objections, the court sustained the same and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Thereafter, without leave of court, or agreement or consent of the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint raising essentially the same claims. The Defendant again filed Preliminary Objections raising the same issues as raised before and adding an argument that Amended Complaint was untimely filed and that the Plaintiff had failed to seek the leave of court or the Defendant’s agreement prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint.

In response, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, again without the permission of the trial court or the agreement of the Defendant. The Defendant responded with Preliminary Objections again.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, again without the permission of the trial court or the agreement of the Defendant. The Defendant raised the same arguments in his Preliminary Objections, again asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to seek leave of court or the Defendant’s agreement to file the additional Amended Complaint. 

The trial court sustained the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in this regard, finding that the Plaintiff had failed to seek leave of court or the agreement of the Defendant to file the Amended Complaint. The court also held that the Amended Complaints were void and should be stricken. As such, the case was dismissed by the trial court with prejudice. The Plaintiff then filed this appeal.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the case by the trial court.

The Superior Court rejected arguments by the Plaintiff that what was before the court were mere technical errors that the Plaintiff should not be punished for due to his counsel’s failure to strictly adhere to the court rules. 

The Superior Court also rejected an argument by the Plaintiff that amendments to allegations in a Complaint must be liberally allowed to secure a speedy determination of the action. 

The Superior Court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments that the Amended Complaint should be allowed as the Defendant did not suffer any prejudice given that the Defendant was aware of the claims presented.

The trial court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s separate argument that, even though the trial court struck the various Amended Complaints, the original Writ of Summons remained valid such that the Plaintiffs should be allowed to further litigate the Writ.

In so ruling, the Pennsylvania Superior Court confirmed that a Plaintiff has an automatic right to amend the Complaint within twenty (20) days of the filing of a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections as per Pa. R.C.P. 1028(c)(1).

The Superior Court also noted that, if the Amended Complaint is not filed within twenty (20) days, the Plaintiff must obtain either the Defendant’s consent or leave of court to file an Amended Complaint under the mandate of Pa. R.C.P. 1033(a).

In this matter, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that, given that the Plaintiff did not ever request leave of court to file an Amended Complaint nor the consent of the Defendant to do the same, the Plaintiffs later filed Amended Complaint was a legal nullity.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the trial court had and an obligation to sua sponte allow an amendment of the Complaint.

Given the Plaintiff’s failures, the Superior Court in Tabb agreed with the trial court's ruling and upheld the finding that that the Plaintiff had waived his claims under the circumstances presented. 

Given that the Plaintiff is found to have waived his claims, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Although the Tabb decision was listed as non-precedential, the Superior Court cited to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and precedential appellate court decisions on point to support its decision in this matter.    

Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Tabb v. Thomas may click this LINK.

Source: “Pennsylvania Civil Law Case Alerts Issued by Fastcase.com.” (March 4, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Jon fabrikasimf on www.freepik.com.

Defendant's Request to Amend Pleadings to Add Crossclaims on the Eve of Trial Denied

In the case of Reynolds Iron Works, Inc. v. Lundy Constr., Co. Inc., No. 20-00, 730 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Jan. 25, 2023 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Leave to file new crossclaims after finding that the Defendant had waited too long to do so in this case, which was already scheduled for trial.

The court noted that, granting the Defendant’s motion would likely lead to prejudice to the other parties under circumstances in which a continuance also might not serve to remedy that prejudice.

This matter arose out of a civil litigation involving a contractor dispute regarding the money allegedly owed on a subcontract.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2023).

Court Denies Plaintiff Right to File Amended Complaint to Correct Name of the Defendant Driver After Plaintiff Waited Too Long To Do So

In the case of Myrick v. Hall, April Term 2020, No. 00794 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 15, 2022 Shreeves-Johns, J.), the court affirmed the trial court’s Order granting a Motion to Dismiss and denying a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint to correct the name of the Defendant driver. in the Complaint.

In its decision, the court focused upon the fact that, although the Plaintiff knew that they had sued the wrong party in the Complaint’s caption, the Plaintiff did not seek to cure this defect until after the applicable statute of limitations had expired.

The court pointed to Supreme Court precedent holding that, where the statute of limitations has run, amendments will not be allowed to introduce a new cause of action or to bring in a new party.

The court emphasized that, based upon the Plaintiff’s own admission, the Plaintiff was aware that an adult male was driving the vehicle involved in the subject accident, but nevertheless chose to name a female as the Defendant driver in the Complaint. It turned out that the husband of the named Defendant driver was the actual driver during the course of the accident.

The court noted that the Plaintiff did not act with haste and took over six (6) months to attempt to cure the defects in their pleading after having become aware of the actual driver’s identity.

As such, in the Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court asserted that it did not abuse its discretion by granting the named Defendant driver’s motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the Complaint to identify the correct driver.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of Image:  Photo by Varvara Grabova on www.unsplash.com.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 22, 2022).

 

Court Reviews Standard of Review For Motion to Amend Complaint in Federal Court

In the case of Moravia Motorcycle, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No.2:21-cv-01274-PLD (W.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2022 Dodge, Mag. J.), the court addressed a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and join an additional party which was opposed by the Defendant carrier in this breach of contract and bad faith claim. The court denied the Motion.

According to the Opinion, this case involved a claim by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant carrier in which they sought benefits under an insurance policy for damage to their motorhome.

The court noted that the Plaintiff was relying upon F.R.C.P. 15(a)(2) in seeking to amend their Complaint. Under that Rule, it is provided that, when a party moves to amend a pleading, “the court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”

However, the magistrate judge in this case noted that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a party seeking to amend after the deadline in a Case Management Order is required to meet the good cause standard of F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4), and not the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a)(2).

In reviewing the record before it, the court noted that there was evidence that the Plaintiff was aware of the possible need to join in another party before the deadline to amend actually expired. In the end, the court found that the Plaintiff had not met the good cause standard.

The court also went on to state that, even if the Plaintiff had met the good cause standard, because their motion sought to add a non-diverse party, the Plaintiffs would have been required to meet other factors in order to be allowed to amend to join a non-diverse party.

The court noted that some of the factors which may be considered by a court when faced with a Motion to Add a Non-Diverse Party would include the extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether the Plaintiff had been dilatory in requesting the amendment, whether the Plaintiff would be significantly injured if the amendment is not allowed, and other equitable factors. The court in this matter noted that it did not appear that these particular factors had yet been adopted in the Third Circuit but had been utilized in other federal circuits.

Nevertheless, after reviewing the factors as applied in this case, the court ruled that the factors weighed against allowing the joinder of the non-diverse Defendant in any event.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh office law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Defendant Given Another Chance to Allege More Factually Specific New Matter Defenses

In the case of J.C.F., a minor v. Brenneman, No. 2021-SU-001714 (C.P. York Co. March 4, 2022 Strong, J.), a court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a Plaintiff against a Defendant’s Amended Answer and New Matter. According to the Opinion, this matter involved an alleged dog bite incident.

In the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Objections to the Defendant’s New Matter, the Plaintiff alleged a lack of factual specificity in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure as well as a lack of legal sufficiency.

The Plaintiff attacked the allegations in the Defendant’s New Matter in which the Defendants had asserted that the Plaintiff’s injuries and/or damages may have been caused in whole or in part by the Plaintiff’s own conduct when the Plaintiff had interacted with the dog.  The Plaintiff also attacked allegations by the Defendant that the Plaintiff may have assumed the risk of injuries and/or that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate any alleged injuries by not following medical advice.

After reviewing the pleadings, the court found that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient factual specificity in support of the defenses raised in the Defendant's New Matter. The court noted that the conclusory paragraphs asserted by the Defendant did not enable the Plaintiff to prepare their case in opposition to the defenses raised.

In striking the new matter allegations regarding contributory negligence and assumption of the risk, the court noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1030(b), it is provided that the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence need not be pled.  As such, the court noted that the Defendant did not need to restate these claims in any amended pleading but that, if they chose to do so, the Defendants were required to fully conform to the requirement under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) of providing sufficient factual specificity in support of such pleadings.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas J. Newell of Newell Law in Perkasie, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Exculpatory Clause in Fitness Center's Membership Agreement Upheld

In the case of Milshteyn v. Fitness International, LLC, 2022 Pa. Super. 30 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2022 Panella, P.J., Kunselman, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to a fitness facility in a Plaintiffs’ slip and fall action where the membership agreement signed by the Plaintiff was not found to be a contract of adhesion.

The court also found that the release in the agreement clearly foreclosed the Plaintiff from proceeding on the claim presented.

The court additionally found that the Plaintiffs’ claim for gross negligence found in an Amended Complaint constituted a wholly distinct claim from the claim presented in the original Complaint. The court noted that the Plaintiffs had attempted to add a claim of gross negligence after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations in an effort to get around the release in the membership agreement given that a claim for gross negligence would not have been barred by the membership agreement. As such, the court stated that, in this context, the Plaintiff’s claims for gross negligence should be deemed to constitute a new cause of action.

As such, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 8, 2022).

Photo by Max Vakhtbovych from www.pexels.com.

Court Grants Trucking Defendant's Motion to Amend its Answer and New Matter to Change Denials to Admissions

In the case of Bellersen v. Gill, No. 19-CV-2686 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 1, 2021 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon addressed a motion filed by a trucking Defendant in a motor vehicle accident litigation under which the trucking Defendant sought to amend its Answer and New Matter to change previous denials in its original Answer and New Matter relative to the facts and the cause of the accident.

The trucking Defendant sought to admit factual allegations of the accident and to further admit that the Defendant driver’s failure to use due care while driving his vehicle on Interstate 380 caused him to rear-end the vehicle in front of him which, in turn, caused that vehicle to rear-end the vehicle that the Plaintiff was driving, and further caused the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to hit the vehicle in front of the Plaintiff.

It was noted in the Opinion that, while this proposed amendment was offered up two (2) years after the original Answer and New Matter was filed, no trial date was scheduled in the case and discovery was ongoing.

The Defendant offered up a proposed Order that not only granted his motion but also contained language under which the Defendant driver seeking the court to rule that such admissions shall not be used as any admission of any type of conduct which could serve as the basis for the imposition of punitive damages.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon reviewed the rules regarding pleading, which he confirmed are to be liberally applied. The court also noted that there was no time limit under Pa.R.C.P. 1033 for the filing of any request for an amendment to a pleading.

The court granted the Defendant’s Motion and allowed the amendment but held any decision on the impact of any such amendment on any claim for punitive damages for a later day.

The court noted that the Defendant’s request that the Plaintiff be prevented from making any evidentiary use of the allowed admissions in support of the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims was not an appropriate consideration relative to the request for leave of court to amend a pleading under Rule 1033. Rather, the court noted that the preclusion of evidence at trial is more properly a subject for a Motion In Limine to be decided by any assigned trial judge.

The court emphasized that any admission that the trucking Defendant would put in his Answer and New Matter would be considered a judicial admission. However, any legal conclusions in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, such as allegations of negligence and/or recklessness, would not qualify as judicial admissions under Pennsylvania law.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this interesting Opinion by Judge Nealon in the case of Bellersen may click this LINK.

Source of top image: Photo by Mike from Pexels.com.

LOOKING TO TRY TO BRING YOUR TRUCKING ACCIDENT CASE TO A CLOSE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR?

TRY CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES

CALL (570) 319-5899 

or

EMAIL dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

Effort To Amend Complaint To Join Defendant Driver After Expiration of Statute of Limitations Denied

In the case of Fick v. Barbon, 12 Berks 280 (C.P. Berks Co. Feb. 14, 2020), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to name a new Defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations. 

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff named the owner of the vehicle in the Complaint but not the driver of the vehicle involved in the subject accident.

The record before the court confirmed that personal information was exchanged by the parties at the scene of the accident. It was also noted that a police officer was present at the accident. The record therefore convinced the court that the Plaintiff knew or should have known the identity of the driver prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In denying the Plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to join the driver to the matter, the court additionally took into consideration the potential prejudice to the Defendant driver in allowing him to be named to a lawsuit after the expiration of the statute of limitations where that driver was now enrolled in college and where the fact that the suit was filed only against the grandparent of the driver supported a reasonable expectation of the driver that he would not be sued. 

A copy of the trial court's decision could not be located online, but here is a LINK to a copy of the Non-precedential Opinion by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the same case.  The Superior Court's decision lays out the law in great detail.  Too bad they did not mark such a thorough Opinion as precedential.  But you can still cite to it anyway under the revised Rules.

Source: "Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges of the Pennsylvania Bar News (Nov. 9, 2020).

Third Circuit Rules Attempts To Amend Pleadings in Federal Court After Deadline Must Be Supported by Good Cause

In the case of Premier Comp Solutions v. UPMC, No. 19-1838 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2020) (Op. by Hardiman, J.), the court addressed the discretion of federal district trial court judges to manage their dockets, particularly with respect to allowing amendments to Complaints or the joinder of additional parties after the expiration of deadlines set in the trial court's case management order.

According to the Opinion, Plaintiff in this matter moved to amend its Complaint to add a party well after the expiration of the deadline for amendments to pleadings that the district court had set in a Scheduling Order. 

In its motion, the Plaintiffs cited the liberal standard set forth in Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is entitled "Amended and Supplemental Pleadings." The district court denied the motion under the rationale that, because the deadline had passed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) required the Plaintiff to show good cause. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure addresses, in part, rules pertaining to "Scheduling" issues.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court under the reasoning that Rule 16(b)(4) applies to requested amendments once a Scheduling Order deadline for the same has passed. As such, under this standard, after the deadline set by the district court’s Scheduling Order has expired, a party is required to show good cause to allow for the amendment 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.



Source: “Court: Post-Deadline, Parties Required to Show ‘Good Cause’ to Amend Complaints or Add Parties,” by P.J. D’Annunzio of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (August 13, 2020).

Amendment Allowed Where Simply to Correct Name of Party (And Not To Add a New Party)

In the case of Thom v. CDM Auto Sales, 2019 Pa. Super. 315 (Pa. Super. Oct. 18, 2019 Olson, J., Strassburger, J., Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the Name of the Defendant Auto Sales Company in the caption and in the body of default judgment paperwork.

The court noted that the Plaintiff had failed to include “LLC” in the name of the Defendant in the pleadings and in the default judgment paperwork. The court ruled that there was no question that the Plaintiff had sued the right business entity but had just failed to use the proper LLC designation.

The appellate court additionally found that the Defendants did not claim or demonstrate any prejudice or surprise. It was additionally noted that the Defendants had participated in the proceedings by filing an Answer as well as a Petition to Open the Default Judgment.

The Superior Court also rejected the trial court’s ruling that Rule 1033 requests for amendments did not apply to judgments. Rather, the court noted that the rule did apply to allow for amendments of the entry of judgments where the amendment is made to simply correct the name of a party (and not to add a new party) if the amendment was made within 90 days of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 5, 2019).

Punitive Damages Claim Allowed to Be Added at Time of Trial

The case of Samuda v. Moreland, No. 8058 - CV - 2016  (C.P. Monroe Co. May 7, 2019 Zulick, J.) is an example of a case in which a trial court allowed a Plaintiff to amend a Complaint at the of trial to add a claim for punitive damages.

According to the Briefs filed in the matter, the case arose out of motor vehicle accident between a Martz Bus and the Plaintiff's vehicle.  Part of the claims pursued by the Plaintiff included claims of recklessness on the part of the Martz Bus Company for allowing its driver to continue to drive its buses despite prior issues with his driving.

In support of her position, the Plaintiff asserted that the addition of punitive damages to the ad damnum clause did not amount to an effort to state a new cause of action beyond the statute of limitations, but rather another element of damages to a timely asserted claim against the Defendants.

Anyone wishing to review the Court's Order (no Opinion) may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Michael J. Foley of the Foley Law Firm in Scranton, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

New Rule Pertaining to John Doe Designations in Pleadings Recently Went Into Effect - Pa.R.C.P. 2005

On April 1, 2019, Pa.R.C.P. 2005, which governs the use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” designations in pleadings, took effect.

According to the Comment to the Rule, the Rules of Civil Procedure were silent as to this issue prior to the implementation of Pa.R.C.P. 2005.

The rule allows a plaintiff or a defendant joining party to designate an unknown defendant by use of a Doe designation provided certain conditions are met. Under the Rule, the Doe defendant’s actual name must be unknown to the plaintiff or the defendant joining party after the completion of a reasonable search for the person using due diligence.

According to the Comment, an effort to list as parties, “Defendants John Doe 1-10 is frowned upon.

The Rule also requires a specific allegation in the pleading confirming that the Doe designation is a designation of a fictitious person or entity.  Also included in the pleading must be a factual description of the unknown defendant which must contain sufficient particularity for identification.
 

Moreover, the plaintiff or defendant joining party must aver that a reasonable search to determine the actual name of the Doe defendant has been conducted.

Any named defendant in the action is granted authority under Rule 2005(e) to file Preliminary objections on the grounds of nonconformity with this Rule 2005 by the Plaintiff or on the grounds of prejudice.

The Rule additionally provides that once the actual name of the unknown defendant is determined, the plaintiff or joining party must file a motion to amend the Complaint pursuant to this Rule 2005 and in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1033, by replacing the “Doe” designation with the defendant’s actual name.  Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit explaining the nature and extent of the investigation utilized to determine the Doe defendant’s actual identity and to provide the date that the identity was determined.

Under the Rule, it is also provided that subpoenas in aid of discovery relating to an unknown Defendant may not be issued or served without leave of court.

Rule 2005 also confirms that a judgment may not be entered by the court against an unknown Defendant.

Source:  Article “New Rule of Civil Procedure Governing Unknown Defendants Took Effect April 1, 2019” by Matthew E. Salmasska, Esq. in the PBA’s Civil Litigation Sections Civil Litigation Update Newsletter at p. 13 (Spring, 2019).  See also Pa.R.C.P. 2005.

Plaintiff Permitted to Amend Med Mal Complaint to Conform Pleadings to Additional Information Gathered During Discovery

In the case of Kellock v. Wilkes-Barre Hospital Co., LLC, No. 17-CV-4655 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 20, 2018 Nealon, J.), the court addressed issues pertaining to a request to amend a medical malpractice Complaint to conform to the evidence adduced during discovery.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs in this matter filed a medical malpractice Complaint against various Defendants involved with the birth and neonatal care of their child.  

Following the deposition of one of the Defendant doctors, the Plaintiff sought to amend their Complaint to add additional allegations of negligence against that particular Defendant doctor and one of the hospitals involved based upon the information gathered at the deposition.   The Plaintiffs asserted that they should be permitted to amend their pleading under Pa.R.C.P. 1033 and given that the statute of limitations had not expired relative to the claims brought on behalf of a minor Plaintiff.  

Applying the liberal standards pertaining to amendment of pleadings and noting that the Defendants had not established any prejudice in this context, the court allowed the requested amendments.   The court also noted that the proposed amendments served to merely amplify the Plaintiff’s already existing allegations.   Based, in part, on these factors, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend was granted.   

Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Nealon in the Kellock case may click this LINK.