Giesler v. Earl Henry Hirchert & Kraft, LLC

• Decision Date: 31 January 2018
• Docket Number: 5:16-CV-05088-JLV
• Parties: RODNEY GIESLER, MARY GIESLER, Plaintiffs, v. EARL HENRY HIRCHERT and KRAFT, LLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

RODNEY GIESLER, MARY GIESLER, Plaintiffs, v. EARL HENRY HIRCHERT and KRAFT, LLC, Defendants.

5:16-CV-05088-JLV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

January 31, 2018

AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

(DOC. 12)

This is a diversity action arising out of a collision between a semi tractor-trailer and a farm tractor on February 16, 2015, on South Dakota Highway 73 in Perkins County. Plaintiffs Rodney Giesler and Mary Giesler filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 12) requesting leave to add a claim for punitive damages against Defendants Earl Hirchert and Kraft LLC. United States District Court Judge Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, referred Plaintiffs' Motion to this magistrate judge for determination. (Doc. 24).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The relevant facts as alleged in the proposed Amended Complaint are as follows. Defendant Earl Hirchert operated a semi tractor-trailer unit for his employer, Defendant Kraft LLC. (Doc. 12-1 at p. 2). On February 16, 2015, Mr. Hirchert was traveling north on South Dakota Highway 73 when he saw an oncoming gas truck in the southbound lane at a distance. After driving over a dip in the highway, Mr. Hirchert then saw plaintiff Rodney Giesler's farm tractor traveling in the northbound lane, about a quarter-mile ahead of him. The highway was snowy and slippery; nevertheless, Mr. Hirchert waited to apply his brakes, and realized he was approaching the farm tractor too quickly to slow down. Mr. Hirchert decided to try to pass the farm tractor, even though he was in a no-passing zone and he knew the gas truck was approaching in the southbound lane. (Doc. 12-1 at p. 3). While passing the farm tractor, Mr. Hirchert engaged his brakes, which caused the rear of the semi-trailer to slide sideways and impact the farm tractor. The impact broke the farm tractor's axle housing and the tractor spun and rolled into the ditch, pinning Mr. Giesler and causing him to suffer a variety of serious injuries. (Doc. 12-1 at p. 3-4). Following the accident, Kraft LLC was cited for violating the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: the tractor-trailer involved in the accident was equipped with inadequate brake linings, violated the minimum tire tread depth requirements, and its brakes were out of adjustment on two of the three trailer axles. (Doc. 12-1 at p. 5-6).

The proposed Amended Complaint alleges that inadequate inspection and maintenance caused the cited deficiencies. (Doc. 12-1 at p. 5). Kraft LLC knew that the cited deficiencies could cause unequal braking, pulling, and difficulties controlling the semi-truck in an emergency stop. (Id.). Kraft LLC was aware that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require drivers prepare and sign daily written reports on each operated vehicle, including on the vehicle's tires and brakes; nevertheless, Kraft LLC had its drivers reportdeficiencies on a dry-erase board, and no written record or report was ever prepared or certified. (Doc. 12-1 at p. 6).

In support of their proposed claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hirchert and Kraft LLC failed to properly inspect and report deficient tires and brakes on the semi-truck, and failed to prepare written reports regarding necessary repairs and maintenance, thereby acting in reckless indifference to important safety rules regarding inspection, maintenance, and commercial vehicle operation. (Doc. 12-1 at p. 10-12). Plaintiffs further allege that Mr. Hirchert failed to operate the semi-truck with extreme caution in hazardous conditions, in violation of Section 392.14 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; violated state law by attempting to pass in a no-passing zone; violated state law by operating the semi-truck at a greater-than-reasonable speed in hazardous conditions; and acted in reckless indifference for the safety of other highway users. (Id.).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to amend the Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. (Doc. 12). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to show good cause to amend the Complaint outside the court's scheduling order. Even if Plaintiffs show good cause, Defendants argue that the proposed amendment is futile.

A. Whether Plaintiffs Show Good Cause to Amend Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that "leave to amend a complaint 'shall be freely given when justice so requires,' but the granting of such a motion is left to the discretion of the district court." Kaufmann v.Sheehan, 707 F.2d 355, 357 (8th Cir. 1983) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). "[A]bsent a good reason for denial—undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of amendment—leave to amend should be granted." Thompson-El v. Jones, 876 F.2d 66, 67 (8th Cir. 1989).

However, Rule 15(a) does not apply when, as here, the "district court has established a deadline for amended pleadings under FRCP 16(b)." Kozlov v. Assoc. Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). The January 19, 2017, scheduling order established an amendment deadline of March 17, 2017. (Doc. 11). Thus, "the liberal policy favoring amendments no longer applie[d]" when Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend on August 15, 2017. Kozlov, 818 F.3d at 395. Rather, Plaintiffs must now make "a showing of good cause" to amend their complaint. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.").

1. Diligence

The primary measure of good cause for an amended complaint is the movant's diligence in attempting to meet the scheduling order's requirements. Morrison Enters., LLC v. Dravo Corp., 638 F.3d 594, 610 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted). "Motions that would prejudice the nonmoving party by requiring a re-opening of discovery with additional costs, a significant postponement of the trial, and a likely major alteration in trial tactics and strategy are particularly disfavored." Kozlov, 818 F.3d at 395 (internalquotations omitted) (affirming district court's denial of motion to amend where movant waited three years after obtaining relevant evidence before adding negligent hiring claim); see also Harris v. FedEx Nat. LTL, Inc., 760 F.3d 780, 786-87 (8th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court's denial of motion to amend where movant sought to amend complaint 17 months after deadline and attempted to add an entirely new theory of recovery); Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 948-89 (8th Cir. 2012) (finding plaintiffs did not act diligently by waiting to amend their complaint until two years after deadline; plaintiffs' delay was deliberately intended to prevent class certification denial); Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 717-718 (8th Cir. 2008) (reversing district court and finding movant failed to show diligence in amending complaint; movant attempted to add affirmative defense eighteen months after deadline for amending pleadings, and eight months after becoming aware of defense's applicability).

In Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Korzan, 15-CV-4124-KES, 2016 WL 4148242 (D.S.D. Aug. 4, 2016), this court addressed the issue of good cause, where defendants moved to amend their complaint four months after receiving relevant evidence and two months after the deadline to amend. The court found that the delay "fail[ed] to compare to situations where courts have not found good cause." Id. at *3 (contrasting cases where movants delayed amendments for between one and three years). No evidence existed that defendants deliberately delayed their motion to amend; furthermore, defendants did not miss any other scheduling deadlines. Id. The courtaccordingly found that the defendants' delay was relatively brief, and good cause existed. Id.; compare Lee v. Driscoll, No. 14-CV-4146-LLP, 2016 WL 1337248, at *3-4 (D.S.D. Mar. 31, 2016) (denying plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint and add punitive damages because plaintiffs waited six months after completing depositions and discovering relevant evidence before filing motion to amend).

Here, Plaintiffs argue there is good cause to amend their complaint to include a punitive damages claim because the relevant evidence was not discovered until after the court's deadline to amend the pleadings had passed. (Doc. 23 at p. 3-4). Plaintiffs assert that they filed the motion to amend forty-seven days after discovering the evidence for the punitive damages claim. Id. at p. 4; compare with Lee, 2016 WL 1337248, at *3-4. Like Korzan, this court finds no evidence that Plaintiffs deliberately delayed their motion to amend or engaged in otherwise subversive tactics. Furthermore, like in Korzan, Plaintiffs have not missed any other scheduling deadlines, and filed their request to amend before the discovery and motions deadlines. The delays in this case—five months past the deadline to amend pleadings and less than two months past the discovery of the relevant evidence—"fail to compare to situations where courts have not found good cause." Korzan, 2016 WL 4148242, at *3. Thus, the court finds that Plaintiffs were diligent in filing their motion to amend the complaint.

2. Undue Prejudice

The second consideration in the good cause analysis is whether undue prejudice would result from scheduling order modifications. Sherman, 532 F.3d at 717 (holding that undue prejudice should only be explored if the movant has been diligent). "The burden of proving prejudice lies with the party opposing the motion." Lillibridge v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. 10-CV-4105-KES, 2013 WL 870439, at *6 (D.S.D. Mar. 7, 2013) (internal citations omitted). Defendants claim that Plaintiffs' amendment will result in prejudice because the parties may need to redo depositions.

In Korzan, this court found that movants' delayed request to amend their answers did not prejudice plaintiffs, because their motion was filed before the discovery...