Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rorick v. Hardi North America Inc.

United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

February 19, 2015

TIMOTHY RORICK and DEANNA RORICK, Plaintiffs,
v.
HARDI NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

Susan Collins, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed on February 18, 2015, seeking to name Northfield Industries, LLC, as an additional defendant in this product liability case. (Docket # 21.) Defendant Hardi North America, Inc., does not oppose the motion. (Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. ¶ 10 Ex. B.)

Plaintiffs’ deadline for any amendments to the pleadings passed on February 2, 2015. (Docket # 19, 20.) Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion is untimely.

A party seeking to amend a pleading after the date specified in a scheduling order must show “good cause” for the amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). BKCAP, LLC v. Captec Franchise Trust 2000-1, No. 3:07-cv-637, 2010 WL 1222187, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 23, 2010) (quoting Tschantz v. McCann, 160 F.R.D. 568, 571 (N.D. Ind. 1995)); see Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). “[T]o demonstrate good cause, a party must show that despite [his] diligence, the time table could not reasonably have been met.” BKCAP, 2010 WL 1222187, at *2 (citing Tschantz, 160 F.R.D. at 571).

Plaintiffs explain that they issued written discovery to Hardi on October 9, 2014, but did not receive Hardi’s responses until February 5, 2015–three days after Plaintiffs’ deadline to amend the pleadings. (Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) These responses confirmed what Plaintiffs had informally learned from Hardi several months earlier–that Northfield Industries had manufactured the wheel assembly that is the subject of this case. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6.) Given Hardi’s interrogatory answer, Plaintiffs now find it necessary to add Northfield Industries as a party-Defendant in the case. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Leave to amend is freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(2). Considering all of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have established “good cause” for the belated amendment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to name Northfield Industries, LLC, as an additional defendant (Docket # 21) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to show Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint filed.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.