Perez v. Hospital Damas, Inc.

Summarized by William Amann , Amann Burnett, PLLC
11 years 4 months ago

Citation:

No. 13-1810

Tag(s):

Ruling:

This appeal asks us to reverse a denial of a motion to amend a complaint in a medical malpractice case. We cannot do so, however, because the District Court acted within its discretion when it decided the plaintiffs had waited too long before trying to add -- just weeks ahead of the trial's scheduled start -- a new defendant.

Procedural context:

Our decision turns on Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that district courts "should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Ordinarily, the district court is best positioned to decide whether that standard has been met, which is why we "review denials of leave to amend under Rule 15 for abuse of discretion, deferring to the district court for any adequate reason apparent from the record." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gold, 30 F.3d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1994). Here, the District Court denied the motion because of the plaintiffs' delay. We have previously explained that "undue delay in moving to amend, even standing alone, may be . . . an adequate reason" to deny such a motion. In re Lombardo, 755 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing Acosta–Mestre v. Hilton Int'l of P.R., Inc., 156 F.3d 49, 51–52 (1st Cir. 1998)). We thus must decide whether the District Court acted within its discretion in deciding on this record that the delay was undue. The plaintiffs respond by, in effect, disputing the availability of one of those documents -- the Health Department license. They argue the license shows how important Fundación Damas, Inc. is to their case. They contend the license establishes that only Fundación Damas, Inc. had the authority to run the hospital at the time the malpractice allegedly occurred. They further argue they could not have responsibly moved to add this critical defendant until they had actually received the license. But the plaintiffs' explanation is incomplete. Even if we were to agree that the license's receipt was a necessary predicate for the plaintiffs' motion, we would still lack an adequate explanation for why the plaintiffs took so long to get that document. But without greater clarity about the timing, we cannot know whether the plaintiffs' failure to pursue the license diligently best explains their late-in-litigation filing, or whether some reason beyond their control is instead to blame. And our concern that the former may be the case is heightened because the record shows the plaintiffs, by their own account, seem to have known of Fundación Damas, Inc.'s connection to the hospital more than a year before they say they first received the license from the Health Department. Given the length of unexplained delay involved, we cannot say the District Court abused its discretion in concluding the plaintiffs failed to act with sufficient speed in seeking to add the new defendant. See Calderón-Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d 14, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of motion for leave to amend in light of eleven-month delay); Villanueva v. United States, 662 F.3d 124,127 (1st Cir. 2011)

Facts:

The plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. They then voluntarily dismissed their suit and re-filed in federal court in October of 2009. The federal complaint named Hospital Damas, Inc., various hospital employees and staff members, and a number of unnamed entities as defendants. One of those unnamed defendants was listed only as "Corporation ABC." Though the plaintiffs did not then know the identity of "Corporation ABC," they nonetheless alleged it was, along with Hospital Damas, Inc., the owner and operator of the Damas Hospital. On April 23, 2010, the District Court dismissed the complaint as to all unnamed defendants, including "Corporation ABC." The court explained "[t]he term to identify [unnamed] defendants ha[d] expired." One week later, however, the plaintiffs successfully filed an amended complaint that again listed the unnamed "Corporation ABC" as a defendant. Then, in September of 2010, Hospital Damas, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In doing so, Hospital Damas, Inc.provided information of potential relevance to the plaintiffs' identification of "Corporation ABC" in the medical malpractice case. Specifically, Hospital Damas, Inc. named Fundación Damas, Inc. both as Hospital Damas, Inc.'s sole co-debtor and as the lessor for the hospital property. Although Hospital Damas, Inc. sought to stay the malpractice case during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court allowed the malpractice case to proceed. And so that suit headed towards trial until, on February 7, 2012 -- six weeks before the scheduled start of the trial -- the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to include Fundación Damas, Inc. as a defendant. Hospital Damas, Inc. argued the District Court should deny the motion so as not to reward the plaintiffs for their lack of diligence in identifying "Corporation ABC." Hospital Damas, Inc. also argued the addition of Fundación Damas, Inc. at such a late date would unfairly delay the trial. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on May 12, 2012, and this appeal followed.

Judge(s):

Howard, Lipez and Barron

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!