Defendant may not file amended answer

Where a company sued for wrongful death was allowed to file a late answer, but was precluded from raising any affirmative defenses to the wrongful death claim, its motion to now amend its late answer to add responses and affirmative defenses was denied. The request was futile in light of the court’s recent orders, would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff and appeared to be an exercise in bad faith.

Background

On March 24, 2022, plaintiff filed her third amended complaint, or TAC, which included a wrongful death claim. Defendant John Crane Inc. was required to answer the TAC by April 7, 2022. It failed to do so, but filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s survival damages claim on April 6, 2022. On May 23, 2022, the day before trial was set to begin, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the survival claim. Then, on May 24, 2022, the trial was continued to Nov. 1, 2022, after plaintiff sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, and defendant sought leave to file a motion for summary judgment.

On Sept. 7, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, explaining that defendant had not only failed to file an answer to the TAC, but also never litigated, responded to or otherwise defended against the wrongful death claim included in the TAC. Defendant argued that its other filings in this action, such as its motion for summary judgment on the survival claim, demonstrated that it was not in default and had “otherwise defended” in response to the wrongful death claim. Defendant’s motion for leave to file an answer to the TAC also included a proposed answer as an exhibit to that motion.

On Oct. 24, 2022, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, sanctioned defendant and barred it from raising any affirmative defenses to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. On Oct. 25, 2022, the court granted defendant’s motion for leave to file its proposed answer to the TAC. Defendant’s late answer was filed on Oct. 26, 2022.

Now before the court is defendant’s motion for leave to file a corrected answer to the TAC. Defendant seeks leave to add responses and affirmative defenses to all allegations in the TAC pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Analysis

Plaintiff objects to defendant’s motion as “futile, unfairly prejudicial, and made in bad faith.” The court agrees and finds that granting defendant’s motion is futile in light of the court’s recent orders, unfairly prejudices plaintiff and appears to be an exercise in bad faith on the part of defendant.

For over five months, defendant disputed other parts of plaintiff’s TAC but failed to address the wrongful death claim. On Oct. 25, 2022, the court gave defendant an opportunity to answer the TAC and avoid default by granting their motion to file their proposed answer to the TAC while noting its deficiencies.

Defendant’s proposed answer purported to incorporate certain responses and defenses in an improper manner. Thus, the defendant’s answer to the TAC, as it stands today, does not assert any defenses or provide defendant’s position on plaintiff’s wrongful death claim.

Defendant was free to file a motion to amend its proposed answer at any point after it filed its Sept. 15, 2022, motion for leave to file an answer to the TAC. However, for 41 days, defendant chose not to take any action until this court’s Oct. 25, 2022, order. Therefore, defendant had ample opportunity to seek to amend its answer.

Notwithstanding the above, defendant has now waited until the eve of trial and after the court issued an order striking its affirmative defenses and noting the deficiencies in defendant’s answer to move to amend. Offering too little of an explanation at too late a time to justify granting defendant’s request, the court declines to tolerate defendant’s prejudicial actions.

Defendants’ motion for leave to file corrected answer to third amended complaint denied.

Mullinex v. John Crane Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-33, Oct. 28, 2022. EDVA at Newport News (Jackson). VLW 022-3-489. 7 pp.