Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. B-06-186.
May 18, 2007
OPINION ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED that on May 18, 2007, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff's Mqtion [sic] for Leave to File Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 14.
I. Background
II. Standard for Granting Leave to Amend
see28 U.S.C. § 267428 U.S.C. § 2679 subjudice Id. Id. 1579 F.3d 480484393 F.3d 590595332 F.3d 854864371 U.S. 178182Foman 371 U.S. at 182
Furthermore, new parties may be added to an action via an amendment under Rule 15(a). Vera v. Bush, 980 F.Supp. 254, 255 (S.D. Tex. 1997); see 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE PROCEDURE § 1474 (2d ed. Supp. 2007). The standard that is applied to an amendment that seeks to add new parties is the same under either Rule 15(a) or Rule 21. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21 ("Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just."); Vera, 980 F.Supp. at 255; WRIGHT, MILLER KANE, supra, § 1474; see also Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 385 F.3d 1360, 1372 (C.A. Fed. 2004).
III. Analysis
In the present case, Plaintiff seeks to add the United States of America as a defendant in this case. Although Plaintiff did not list the Government as a specific defendant in her original or first amended complaints, she did refer to the United States as a defendant in the substance of her motions. Dkt. Nos. 1, 8. Plaintiff also discussed her claim on the basis of the Government's possible liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Dkt. No. 1, at 1-3; Dkt. No. 8, at 4. Additionally, Plaintiff included discussions regarding her remedy "against the United States of America" while conceding that dismissal of Ponce as a party to the action was proper. Dkt. No. 11, at 1.
The Court finds that the factors set forth in Foman warranting a denial of leave to amend are not present in this matter. There is no evidence that Plaintiff has engaged in undue delay or bad faith in requesting leave to amend her complaint. Instead, an examination of Plaintiff's previous pleadings demonstrates that although Plaintiff failed to specifically name the United States of America as a defendant in this case, she intended to include the Government as a party to the instant action, and the omission was merely an oversight. See Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that subsection (a) of Rule 15, combined with subsection (c), "ensure that an inadvertent error in pleading will not preclude a party from securing relief on the merits of a claim"). Additionally, Plaintiff may allege a cause of action against the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. Thus, Plaintiff's proposed amendment is not futile or frivolous. Furthermore, the Government will not suffer undue prejudice as a result of Plaintiff's amendment because the instant action is in its early stages, and an Assistant United States Attorney has already been working on the case. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend her complaint as requested.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Mqtion [sic] for Leave to File Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 14.