148 F. Supp. 3d 542
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Plaintiffs sued defendants over alleged fraudulent misrepresentations to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) about the ET-Plus guardrail end terminal, invoking fraudulent concealment to toll statutes of limitations.
- On September 29, 2015 the court denied defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
- Defendants filed a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration asking the court to enter judgment on the pleadings in their favor.
- Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint; defendants opposed chiefly arguing futility because claims were time-barred and certain causes of action are not viable under Virginia law.
- The court considered whether defendants presented new law, new evidence, or clear error warranting reconsideration, and whether amendment would be prejudicial, in bad faith, or futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration under Rule 54(b) is warranted | Plaintiffs implicitly argue prior denial was correct; no change required | Defendants argue the court should reconsider and grant judgment on the pleadings | Denied — defendants presented no new evidence, law, or clear error; merely rehashed prior arguments |
| Whether defendants’ alleged misrepresentations to FHWA can toll the statute of limitations via fraudulent concealment | Plaintiffs contend the qui tam verdict and alleged affirmative misrepresentations suffice to plead fraudulent concealment | Defendants contend omissions to FHWA are not affirmative acts and plaintiffs knew their injuries earlier so tolling is improper | Court held plaintiffs adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment; prior analysis stands |
| Relevance of qui tam jury verdict in Texas | Plaintiffs rely on the qui tam verdict (false statements to FHWA) as central evidence supporting tolling | Defendants argue the Texas verdict did not find the ET-Plus defective and thus is insufficient | Court: verdict establishing knowingly false statements to FHWA is relevant to fraudulent concealment even if Texas jury did not decide product defectiveness |
| Whether leave to amend should be denied as futile | Plaintiffs seek leave to amend; argue amendment is permitted under Rule 15(a) | Defendants argue proposed claims are time-barred, assert strict product liability not recognized in Virginia, and breach of warranty would fail | Granted — court permits amendment; defendants may later move to dismiss but futility not established now |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, 326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2003) (district court may reconsider interlocutory orders under Rule 54(b) in its discretion)
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (principles guiding discretion over interlocutory matters)
- Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010) (policy favoring liberal amendment under Rule 15)
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (leave to amend should be denied only for prejudice, bad faith, or futility)
- Smithfield Foods, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 975 (E.D. Va. 1997) (motions for reconsideration should not be used to reargue prior claims)