David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
58 F.R.D. 444 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a court may deny a party's motion to amend a pleading if the party has unduly delayed in seeking the amendment and it would result in undue prejudice to the opposing party, such as when the statute of limitations has run, barring the opposing party's claim against the correct entity.
Facts:
- In 1961, James Hunter Corporation (Hunter) designed, manufactured, and sold a machine to Crown Products Corporation (Crown).
- Sometime after the sale of the machine, Crompton & Knowles Corporation (Crompton) purchased the assets of Hunter.
- Crompton possessed the purchase agreement detailing the terms of its acquisition of Hunter's assets and any liabilities it assumed.
- On November 27, 1969, a plaintiff was seriously injured while using the machine located at Crown's facility.
- At the time it answered the complaint or shortly thereafter, Crompton was aware that the machine was a product originally made by Hunter.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a products liability action against Crompton & Knowles Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The complaint alleged that Crompton had designed, manufactured, and sold the machine that caused the injury.
- In its original answer, Crompton averred that it lacked sufficient knowledge or information to either admit or deny the plaintiff's allegation.
- In subsequent answers to interrogatories and in a third-party complaint, Crompton indicated it was responsible for the machine.
- The two-year statute of limitations on the plaintiff's personal injury claim expired on November 27, 1971.
- After the statute of limitations expired, Crompton filed a motion for leave to amend its answer to deny that it designed, manufactured, or sold the machine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's undue delay in seeking to amend its answer to deny a key factual allegation, which results in undue prejudice to the plaintiff by barring their claim against the correct party due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, justify the court's denial of the motion to amend?
Opinions:
Majority - Huyett, District Judge.
No. A defendant may not amend its answer when the amendment is unduly delayed and would result in severe prejudice to the plaintiff. First, Crompton's original answer, which claimed a lack of knowledge or information regarding the machine's origin, is deemed an admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b). The terms of the purchase agreement with Hunter were a matter peculiarly within Crompton's control and knowledge, making its claim of ignorance improper. Second, while Rule 15(a) encourages liberal amendments, it is not required where there is undue delay and prejudice. Crompton knew the essential facts but waited to amend until after the two-year statute of limitations expired, preventing the plaintiff from suing the correct party. This delay lulled the plaintiff into believing they had sued the proper defendant. To permit the amendment now would be to penalize the faultless plaintiff and potentially leave them without a remedy for severe injuries due to a situation of the defendant's own making.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical interplay between the federal pleading rules and equitable principles of fairness. It establishes that a defendant's initial, improper denial of information peculiarly within its knowledge can be treated as an admission. Furthermore, the court's balancing of the liberal amendment policy under FRCP 15(a) against the severe prejudice caused by undue delay sets a key precedent. The decision serves as a significant warning that parties cannot use procedural tactics or delays to gain an unfair advantage, especially when it forecloses an opposing party's ability to seek a remedy due to an expired statute of limitations.
