From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schwartz v. American Stores Co.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania
May 5, 1958
22 F.R.D. 38 (E.D. Pa. 1958)

Summary

In Schwartz v. American Stores Company, 22 F.R.D. 38 (E.D.Pa.1958), and Wyshak v. City National Bank, 607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir.1979), defendants were allowed to raise statute of limitations defenses after their initial answers were filed, because no undue prejudice was shown.

Summary of this case from Perlmutter v. Shatzer

Opinion

         Defendant made a motion to amend its answer so as to plead the statute of limitations. The District Court, Egan, J., held that motion would be granted, where the only prejudice that could result to the plaintiff was that plaintiff's claim might be barred.

         Motion granted.

          Norman Shigon, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

          James Paul Dornberger, J. Paul Erwin, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.


          EGAN, District Judge.

         The defendant moves to amend its answer so as to plead the statute of limitations. It relies on Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which states inter alia that ‘ leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.’

          Justice so requires where the granting of the motion results in no prejudice to the opposing party. Budd Co. v. United States. D.C.E.D.Pa.1956, 19 F.R.D. 346; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. American Plumbing & Supply Co., D.C.E.D.Wis.1956, 19 F.R.D. 334; Bella v. Marine Transport Lines, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 18 F.R.D. 410; Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., D.C.N.D.Ill.1953, 15 F.R.D. 354, 356; Kraushaar v. Leschin, D.C.E.D.Pa.1944, 4 F.R.D. 144.

          It is apparent that in this case, the only prejudice that may result is that the plaintiff's claim will be barred. If this were a valid ground for objection, Rule 15(a) would be nugatory. Obviously, this was not contemplated by the Rules.

         The Court does not take the position that the defendant should be penalized because of an apparent oversight on behalf of its counsel. The sporting element of pleading is no longer with us. See, Kraushaar v. Leschin, D.C.E.D.Pa.1944, 4 F.R.D. 144; Downey v. Palmer, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1939, 27 F.Supp. 993, reversed on other grounds.

         Accordingly, the motion to amend is granted.


Summaries of

Schwartz v. American Stores Co.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania
May 5, 1958
22 F.R.D. 38 (E.D. Pa. 1958)

In Schwartz v. American Stores Company, 22 F.R.D. 38 (E.D.Pa.1958), and Wyshak v. City National Bank, 607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir.1979), defendants were allowed to raise statute of limitations defenses after their initial answers were filed, because no undue prejudice was shown.

Summary of this case from Perlmutter v. Shatzer

In Schwartz, defendant moved to amend its answer to include the applicable statute of limitations as a defense. 22 F.R.D. at 38.

Summary of this case from M Elec. Corp. v. Phil-Gets
Case details for

Schwartz v. American Stores Co.

Case Details

Full title:Frances SCHWARTZ v. AMERICAN STORES COMPANY.

Court:United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania

Date published: May 5, 1958

Citations

22 F.R.D. 38 (E.D. Pa. 1958)

Citing Cases

Deakyne v. Commissioners of Lewes

The Town's trial counsel is not appellants' counsel in this appeal. See Carr v. Wisecup, 263 F.2d 157, 160…

Perlmutter v. Shatzer

Such amendments have only been allowed, however, upon a showing by the amending party that the opposing party…