Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

”—"““rTrm“_——_rrr--····m-——+———~—————————»»~———-—W-as-gpt..Tq....._”m__ .
Case 3:03-cv-00559-AVC Document 22 Filed 11/17/2003 Page 1 of 1
{ . .. .. !_,__h rm"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .. . .
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICU'1l
1 in ` l 1I . "/I I
1 ` 1
) . . .... v_ _ I_ (
PUTNAM PARK ASSOCIATES, ) J y _ E ` I r
) r »· j
3 O3CV559 (AVC). November 17, 2003. This is an action for
damages arising out of an alleged default on a business lease.
On September 29, 2003, the discovery period ih this matter
” closed. On October 14, 2003, the defendant fhled the within '
motion to amend the answer and add three new affirmative
X defenses, arguing that the court should authorize the amendment 1 Q
because the plaintiff cannot show prejudice a ising therefrom. Q
In this regard, the defendant asserts that noFadditional l
discovery will be required by the amendment because the l
additional defenses are based on the same operative facts as the
pre—existing affirmative defenses. In the pDaintiff's view,
however, the new affirmative defenses involve new allegations of
fact that, if permitted, would require a re-opening of discovery |
and thereby cause prejudice. Having reviewed the submissions of '
counsel and the relevant authority, the court concludesathat Fed. 1
R. Civ. P. 15(a) authorizes the amendment. dnder Rule 15(a), Q
leave to amend is "freely given when justice so requires." IQ; 1
The rule favors authorizing an amendment unless there rs a
"showing by the non-moving party of bad faith or undue
prejudice." State Teachers Ret. Bd. v. Fluog Cgrp-, 654 F.2d
843, 856 (2d Cir. 1981). Undue prejudice may be found where a
nonmoving party can show lack of "the opport nity to pnesent
facts or evidence which it would have offere had the amendment[] I
been timely." Cuff v. Gett Refinin & Mark ti =o., 648 F.
Supp. 802, 806 (D.Del. 1986). In this case, there is no ,
allegation of bad faith, and the court perce'ves ne prejudice to '
the plaintiff in authorizing the amendment. The amendment adds .
new allegations concerning the defendant's s ate of mind, that .
is, that under the circumstances of this matier, the defendant A
believed that a third party (Liberty Bank) w s the p1aintiff's -
agent and had the authority to bind the plai tiff to an
agreement, and that under the circumstances,lthe parties intended
to modify the lease agreement. These new allegatiens will not
require additional fact discovery because th y simply propose a
conclusion based on an assessment of the alrgady discovered —
circumstances. Further, to the extent the p aintiff asserts that
it lacked notice of the defense, the court nites that, during
discovery, the parties filed a Rule 26(f) report in which the
defendant specifically stated that, with respect te the third - ‘
party at issue, (Liberty Bank), that LibertylBank "wasian agent _`T ,
of [the plaintiff] for purposes of [the agre ment], and had gg · " '
actual or apparent authority to act on [the laintiff'slLbehalf.
. ." For these reasons, the court perceives no prejudfbejto_the jg
plaintiff in authorizing the leave requestedland, accordingly? L,} _,_,
Y the motion to amend is GRANTED. __ .Cw$ (Q 1
I ·` Ei
L 50 ORDERED- [ j
Alfred V. ove lo, U.S.D.J I
iiiiiiiiiiirrrr··“···············~·--—··--——-—-3;;;£;;3;gdgg;;hj;;;;;:;:————~r=—r+#J

- ¥ -—-- eeé