Biedler v. Hurst

22 F.R.D. 333, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 220, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4457

Opinion

LEAHY, District Judge.

1. Plaintiff has a new theory for recovery. He wants to amend his complaint. Rule 15 of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., says he should. Also Moore¹ agrees. F.R. 15 (c) abolishes any defense of intervening statute of limitations between amendments to pleadings.² Moreover, it is valid for a litigant to change his theory of recovery.³ Delay in amendment hardly works prejudice.

Footnotes

•

3a

2. The proposed amendments do not involve validity of the asserted claim. Here the proposed amendment shows, it is said, an agreement involving an usurious demand. Courts have rejected such arguments.⁴

3. If plaintiff wants to amend he should be allowed to.

An appropriate order should be submitted.

4

. Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., D.C., 15 F.R.D. 354, affirmed 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 714, 59 A.L.R.2d 159; Cravatts v. Klozo Fastener Corp., D.C., 15 F.R.D. 12; Naamloze Vennootschap Suikerfabriek “Wono-Aseh” v. Chase National Bank, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 261. Look at Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 546.

1

. 3 Moore’s Fed.Practice, p. 828.

2

. See Copeland Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp., 5 Cir., 199 F.2d 566; Green v. Walsh, D.C., 21 F.R.D. 15; Batkiewicz v. Seas Shipping Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 53 F.Supp. 802.

3

. Busam Motor Sales v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 469; Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 546.

. Copeland Motor Co. v. General Motors Corp., supra; Heay v. Phillips, 9 Cir., 201 F.2d 220; Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., D.C.W.D.Pa., 101 F.Supp. 549. See, also, Stepp v. United States, 4 Cir., 207 F.2d 909; Armstrong Cork Co. v. Patterson-Sargent Co., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 534.