Anthony v. United States

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6

7 ) KEVIN D. ANTHONY, ) CASE NO. 3:19-cv-05337-BJR 8 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND v. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UNDER 10 ) THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 11 ) Defendant. ) 12 ____________________________________)

13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin D. Anthony’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. 14 Dkt. Nos. 65 (Sealed), 66 (Redacted) (“Mot.”). The Court recounted the facts of this case in its 15 recent Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the United States’ Motion for Summary 16 17 Judgment and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 63, 64 18 (“November 2 Order”). 19 The Court granted the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Medical 20 Negligence claim on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to present medical expert testimony necessary 21 to establish the standard of care for his claim. See November 2 Order at 22. The Court did so, 22 however, without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to file the currently pending motion with 23 24 the expectation that Plaintiff would cure this deficiency. Id. at 26–27. Plaintiff now represents 25 that he has retained the necessary experts. Dkt. No. 70 at 5. While the Court notes the United 1 States’ objection that granting leave to amend will cause delays in bringing this case to trial, the

7 Court is also cognizant of the “strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3 || favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel vy. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). As such, 4 || the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion. Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint no later 5 || than within five (5) days of this Order. 6 The Court notes that Plaintiff has included a reservation of rights section in his proposed Amended Complaint purporting to “reserve[] the right to amend this Complaint based on what he learns during the course of discovery in this case.” Mot. at 37. The Court finds that given the

10 leave to amend granted herein, Plaintiff has had sufficient opportunity to amend his complaint and 11 |} the Court will not entertain another motion for leave to amend. 12 As Plaintiff’s filing of his Amended Complaint and retaining of experts will require 13 || additional discovery, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in order to propose 4 a new case schedule including deadlines for expert disclosure, depositions, motions in limine, and a joint pretrial statement and new dates for a pretrial conference and trial. This Order, however,

17 || teopens discovery for the limited purpose of disclosing and examining Plaintiffs newly retained 1g || experts and for no other purpose. The parties shall file a joint statement proposing their deadlines 19 || within fourteen (14) days of this Order. 20 SO ORDERED. 71 DATED this 23rd day of December, 2020. 22 23 fits. arherein BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25