United States District Court, D. Connecticut
TEREX SOUTH DAKOTA, INC. Plaintiff,
CLASSIC GEARS & MACHINING, INC., PRECISE WELDING, LLC, and A&P FABRICATING SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants,
Precise Welding LLC, and A&P FABRICATING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Third Party Defendants.
RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
W. EGINTON SENIOR U.S DISTRICT JUDGE.
action, plaintiff Terex South Dakota, Inc., alleges that
defendant Classic Gears is liable under Connecticut law for
improperly designed and manufactured sprockets. Plaintiff
alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of express
warranty; (3) breach of the implied warranty of fitness; (4)
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (5) and
express indemnity. Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the
complaint to add claims of negligence and negligent
non-disclosure under Wisconsin law. For the following
reasons, the motion to amend will be granted.
is a manufacturer of mobile utility equipment. It is a
Delaware Corporation, with a parent corporation, Terex
Corporation, located in Connecticut. Defendant Classic Gears
is a Wisconsin corporation.
matter arises out of plaintiff's contracts to purchase
from Classic Gears leveling sprockets manufactured by Classic
Gears. The relevant contracts provided that the contracts
would be construed in accordance with Connecticut law, and
that disputes would be governed by Connecticut law.
alleges that the sprockets were improperly designed or
manufactured by Classic Gears.
30, 2017, the Court granted defendant leave to file a
Third-Party complaint against A&P Fabricating Solutions,
LLC and Precise Welding, LLC.
March 21, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint to include negligence claims against
defendants A&P Fabricating Solutions and Precise Welding.
represents that, in August 2018, defendants' corporate
designees testified to facts indicating that plaintiff's
design drawings had been modified by Classic Gears.
parties engaged in unsuccessful private mediation on December
20, 2018. In February, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to
extend the scheduling deadlines, extending discovery to
November 22, 2019.
filed this motion to amend on April 25, 2019. The parties
completed briefing the instant motion on June 5, 2019.
seeks to amend the complaint, although the scheduling
order's deadline for amending the complaint has passed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a
pleading should be granted “freely … where
justice so requires.” Reasons for a proper denial of
leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, futility of
the amendment, and perhaps most important, the resulting
prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1963). Additionally, Rule 16(b) provides that
scheduling orders should not be modified without “good
cause” Thus, once the amendment deadline has passed,
leave to amend may be denied ...