Nikitine v. Wilmington Trust Company
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9454
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege materially identical claims against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Wilmington Trust Co. and are represented by the same counsel.
- Court relies on Calderón-Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co. to affirm dismissal for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff sought leave to amend to assert new theories of liability after nearly nine months of briefing on motions to dismiss.
- District court denied leave to amend on grounds of undue delay and bad faith; it also granted the motions to dismiss.
- Court reviews a district court’s denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion and agrees the denial was proper given delay and lack of explanation.
- Decision leaves open the possibility of pursuing claims in state court but affirms dismissal with prejudice to federal action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiff argues district court abused discretion by denying amendment despite justice require | Defendants contend delay and new theories justify denial to amend | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Calderón-Serra | Plaintiff asserts jurisdictional basis remains viable | Defendants rely on Calderón-Serra’s holdings denying federal jurisdiction | Affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the new theories in the amended complaint would be futile | Plaintiff contends new theories should be permitted to proceed | Defendants argue theories based on same facts are untimely and speculative | Amendment denied for futility and delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2006) (leave to amend not automatic; can be denied for undue delay or futility)
- Hatch v. Dep't for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Aponte-Torres v. Univ. of P.R., 445 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006) (deference to district court’s hands-on judgment when record shows adequate reason)
- Hayes v. New Eng. Millwork Distribs., Inc., 602 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1979) (burden on movant to show valid reason for neglect and delay)
- Villanueva v. United States, 662 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (delay considered; four months cited as example of undue delay)
- ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Advest, Inc., 512 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2008) (contextual factor in considering amendment timing)
- Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983) (new theories must be timely and grounded in the existing facts)
- Kotler v. Am. Tobacco Co., 981 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1992) (timeliness and purpose of amendments)