Summary
finding that defendant was on notice of plaintiff's claims and "also that it understood itself to be the proper party" because defendant was the administrator of the previously dismissed party and became aware of the action at the same time as the dismissed party
Summary of this case from Henderson v. WilliamsOpinion
Civil Action No. 03-2081 (JDB).
April 22, 2005
Benjamin Nichols, Jr., Forestville, MD, Plaintiff.
Diane V. D'Aiutolo, TYDINGS ROSENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, MD, Counsel for defendant Kaiser.
Catherine A. Hanrahan, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN DICKER, Washington, DC, Counsel for defendant Greater Southeast Community Hospital.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Benjamin Nichols has brought this wrongful death and negligence action against Greater Southeast Community Hospital ("Greater Southeast") and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. ("Kaiser"). Now pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint. Upon consideration of the various submissions and the entire record, the Court will grant in part and deny in part plaintiff's motion to amend.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's current action arises from the death of his stepfather, James Paul Hamilton. See Compl. at 4-9 (unnumbered paragraphs). Plaintiff, as personal representative of the estate of Mr. Hamilton, alleges that defendants were negligent in causing the death of his stepfather and seeks both actual and punitive damages. See id. Plaintiff also initially filed wrongful death and negligence claims against Metro Access and Washington Kidney Center Fresenrus Medical Care Columbia Heights Dialysis ("Washington Kidney Center"). Plaintiff alleged that Metro Access caused Mr. Hamilton and his wife distress by waking them well in advance of their scheduled pickup. See Compl. at 3. Plaintiff also alleged that Metro Access abandoned Mr. Hamilton a number of times upon his return from the dialysis center. Id. On August 23, 2004, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Metro Access, which made a special appearance through counsel to argue that Metro Access is not a sueable entity. See Metro Access Mot. ¶ 4. The Court, in granting the motion of Metro Access, dismissed plaintiff's claims "without prejudice to plaintiff's efforts to identify the appropriate entity for the claims he attempted to raise against 'Metro Access.'" See August 23, 2004 Order. On December 15, 2004, plaintiff dismissed his claims against the Washington Kidney Center.
Defendants Greater Southeast and Kaiser have now filed motions for summary judgment. The motion of Greater Southeast has been fully briefed. Kaiser filed two motions for summary judgment: the first argues that plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law, and the second argues that the undisputed facts establish that Kaiser is not liable. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Kaiser's motions for summary judgment and simultaneously filed a motion to amend the complaint. The motion to amend seeks to change the name of defendant Kaiser to Kaiser Permanente. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint also adds Logisticare Solutions, LLC ("Logisticare") as a defendant.
LEGAL STANDARD
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) governs the amendment of pleadings, and states that leave to file an amended complaint should be "freely given when justice so requires." Whether to grant a motion to amend is within the sound discretion of the district court.Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). However, it is an abuse of that discretion to deny a motion to amend without a "justifying" or sufficient reason. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). These reasons include "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party . . . futility of amendment, etc." Id. Generally, under Rule 15(a) the non-movant bears the burden of persuasion that a motion to amend should be denied. See Dove v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 221 F.R.D. 246, 247 (D.D.C. 2004); see also Gudavich v. District of Columbia, 22 Fed. Appx. 17, 18 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2001) (noting the non-movant "failed to show prejudice from the district court's action in allowing the [movant's] motion to amend.")
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint makes two changes — changing the name of defendant Kaiser to Kaiser Permanente and adding Logisticare as a defendant. Because of Rule 15(a)'s liberal policy favoring amendments, the non-movant generally bears the burden. See Dove, 22 F.R.D. at 247. Therefore, the Court will focus on the arguments presented by Kaiser and Logisticare as to why amendment of the complaint should not be permitted. Examining each argument in turn, the Court will deny plaintiff's motion to change the name of Kaiser to Kaiser Permanente and permit plaintiff to add Logisticare as a defendant.
I. Kaiser Permanente
In his motion to amend the complaint, plaintiff argues his "intention was not to file or challenge Kaiser Foundation Health Care Plan, but file against Kaiser Permanente, whose employees were negligent in not providing the proper standard of medical care and services to the decedent." Pl. Mot. at 1. In a supplemental motion to amend, plaintiff further argues that his reason for amendment is to avoid Kaiser's preemption argument.See Pl. Supp. Mot. at 2 ("Plaintiff's reason for amending the complaint to add 'Kaiser Permanent' or Kaiser whoever, other than their Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, which is preempted by [federal law]."). Kaiser responded that Kaiser Permanente is a "non-existent entity" and it would appear that plaintiff's motion to amend is meant merely to delay the Court's ruling on Kaiser's motion for summary judgment. See Kaiser Opp. at 3-5. Kaiser also notes that its arguments in favor of its motion for summary judgment would be the same regardless of the name inserted for the defendant. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff's supplemental motion confirms Kaiser's concern that this change in name is merely to delay a decision on Kaiser's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not provided any basis for the change, except to say he wants to name anyone as the defendant that would not be preempted by federal law. It is not only unclear that Kaiser Permanente is an actual entity, see Kaiser Opp. at 3-5, but it is also unclear that a name change would have any effect on the disposition of defendant's motion for summary judgment. Regardless of the name of this defendant, plaintiff wants to hold Mr. Hamilton's health plan liable for his death because they ignored his "request to live after he mistakenly said he wanted to die." See Compl. at 4; cf. Am. Compl. at 4 (Kaiser Permanente staff "ignored Mr. Hamilton's request to live, after he prematurely stated that he wanted to die."). The name change does not effect the substance of plaintiff's claim against Kaiser, and Kaiser's preemption argument could be made under either name. Therefore, because the change in name does not appear to have any effect on the litigation, except to unfairly delay the Court's ruling on Kaiser's motion for summary judgment, the Court will not permit plaintiff to change the name of Kaiser to Kaiser Permanente.See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (justifications to deny a motion to amend include "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party . . . futility of amendment").
II. Logisticare
Plaintiff next seeks to add Logisticare as a defendant to this action for its role as administrator of the Metro Access transportation program, which plaintiff alleges was negligent in providing transportation services for Mr. Hamilton. See Am. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff had previously brought this action against Metro Access, but those claims were dismissed because Metro Access was not a sueable entity. See August 23, 2004 Order. On plaintiff's motion to amend, Logisticare makes a special appearance as amicus curiae to argue against granting the motion.
Logisticare argues that any claims against it are time barred by the relevant statute of limitations. See Logisticare Opp. at 2. However, plaintiff's claims against Logisticare relate back to the original filing date under Fed.R.Civ.P 15(c)(3). Under Rule 15(c)(3), an amendment relates back if it arises from the original occurrence and the substituted party received notice of the action within the relevant time period under Fed.R.Civ.P 4(m), the new party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense, and the party knew or should have known that but for a mistake they were the proper party. These criteria are met in this case. Logisticare was on notice within the relevant time period for service of process of plaintiff's claims because Logisticare is the administrator of Metro Access, and thus became aware of this action the same time as did Metro Access. Furthermore, the motion to dismiss filed by Metro Access specifically referred to Logisticare. This not only shows Logisticare was on notice of the original action, but also that it understood itself to be the proper party. Finally, Logisticare has not made any showing that an amendment would prejudice it in any way.
It is also noteworthy that the same counsel represents both Metro Access and Logisticare.
Next, Logisticare argues that the allegations in the Proposed Amended Complaint do not state a cause of action and that plaintiff is merely engaging in "fishing expeditions in the hopes of uncovering a cause of action." See Logisticare Opp. at 2-3. If plaintiff failed to state a claim in the amended complaint, it would be proper for the Court to deny plaintiff's motion to amend as futile. However, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing at this point that it can state a claim. In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that Logisticare "departed from the standard care and services with respect to the Decedent by . . . (w) unnecessarily disturbing and disrupting the decedent, his household and family; (z) failing to timely pick-up the decedent during his scheduled arrival and departure appointment." Am. Compl. at 8.
Logisticare finally argues that the five months between the Court's order dismissing the Metro Access claims and the motion to amend is impermissibly long and meant to disadvantage Logisticare. However, Logisticare has not shown how it is harmed by this five month delay. Therefore, Logisticare has failed to establish a ground for this Court to deny plaintiff's motion to add it as a party to this litigation.
Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of April 2005, hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is DENIED in part, and GRANTED in part; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff may not change the name of Kaiser to Kaiser Permanente; it is further ORDERED that plaintiff may add Logisticare as a defendant to the current action; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff may file an amended complaint that is consistent with this Court's Order; it is further
ORDERED that Logisticare shall have 30 days to respond to plaintiff's amended complaint after it is properly served upon Logisticare; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court will take under consideration the motions for summary judgment filed by Kaiser and Greater Southeast.