Haertlein v. Amerifield, Inc.
2:20-cv-00796
| D.N.M. | Apr 6, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Haertlein sued after a tractor-trailer accident alleging personal injury, negligence, negligent entrustment, breach of contract, bad faith, and statutory claims; defendants removed to federal court.
- The Scheduling Order set the pleading-amendment deadline as December 16, 2020; discovery cutoff later extended to May 17, 2021.
- On February 3, 2021, plaintiff received discovery showing Amerifield owned the trailer only and that the tractor was owned/operated by Jason Alfawadi/Airborne Trucking under an owner/operator agreement.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to amend on February 18, 2021 to add Alfawadi and Airborne Trucking LLC and assert respondeat superior, negligence, and negligent entrustment claims.
- Defendants Amerifield and Abbas opposed as untimely, arguing the identities/relationships were disclosed earlier and plaintiff offered no justification for delay.
- The magistrate judge concluded plaintiff explained the delay, defendants failed to show undue prejudice, and recommended granting leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend after the scheduling-order deadline (Rule 15/16) | Discovery on Feb 3, 2021 revealed new, material facts (tractor ownership/owner/operator agreement) justifying amendment filed Feb 18, 2021 | Motion is untimely; plaintiff had earlier disclosures and should have amended sooner | Grant: plaintiff showed good cause under Rule 16 and permissive amendment under Rule 15 |
| Undue delay / bad faith | Plaintiff acted promptly after learning material facts; not making complaint a "moving target" | Plaintiff delayed and offered no adequate explanation | Denied as a concern—court found no bad faith or improper delay |
| Prejudice to defendants | Little/no prejudice: discovery remains open, parties can seek schedule extensions; defendants can amend responsive pleadings | Adding parties/claims would prejudice defense and trial preparation | No undue prejudice; amendment allowed |
| Whether new discovery suffices to justify amendment | The owner/operator agreement and ownership split changed plaintiff's theory and parties to sue | Defendants claim identity/relationship were already disclosed earlier | Court credited plaintiff's explanation that he learned the nature of the parties' involvement only after the Feb 3 responses and allowed amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent reasons like undue delay or futility)
- Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (Rule 16 good-cause standard requires diligence and explanation for missed deadlines)
- Frank v. U.S. West Inc., 3 F.3d 1357 (10th Cir. 1993) (untimeliness can justify denying leave to amend when no adequate explanation exists)
- Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 1994) (district court has discretion on motions to amend)
- Warnick v. Cooley, 895 F.3d 746 (10th Cir. 2018) (lists grounds to deny leave to amend, including undue delay and prejudice)
- Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2009) (prejudice is the most important factor in amendment decisions)
- Castleglen, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 984 F.2d 1571 (10th Cir. 1993) (enumerates factors weighing against amendment)