Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-07367_de128> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07367_de128 RegisterActionDate "2011-07-07" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07367_de128 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman:Plaintiff, DC18FB2, moves to file her Third Amended Complaint, raising four new counts under Illinois law based on defendants promise to deliver a document Ms. DC18FB2 had handwritten to the CRAs and Harris failure to deliver that document. Defendant Harris objects to plaintiffs motion to amend, asserting that plaintiff had ample opportunity to raise the proposed claims in earlier complaints and to do so now serves only to unduly delay proceedings. For the reasons stated herein the motion is denied. Rule 15(a) allows liberal amendment to pleadings as justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, amendments to pleadings are inappropriate where: (1) there has been an undue delay; (2) there has been a repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; and/or (3) the opposing party would be unduly prejudiced if this Court were to permit the amendment. Airborne Beepers v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007). "The power of a court to permit amendments to a complaint should not be used to completely change the theory of the case after the case has been submitted to the Court on another theory without some showing of lack of knowledge, mistake or inadvertence or some change of conditions over which that party had no knowledge or control." Johnson v. Sales Consultants, Inc., 61 F.R.D. 369, 371 (N.D. Ill. 1973). Here, plaintiff admits that the facts on which she bases her most recent state law claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional misrepresentation, were known to her at the time she filed her original complaint. She contends that the additional facts were not crucial to previous claims and, as a result, were not included in prior complaints. (Dkt. 129, Plaintiffs Reply Brief, p.5.) Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to allege all her claims in the original complaint and two successive complaints. While plaintiffs new counsel may have a different theory of the case from his predecessors in this matter, amendments to pleadings are not intended to permit plaintiffs to allege new claims with each new attorney they employ. At this juncture, plaintiff has been permitted to file three complaints and defendant has filed three motions to dismiss resulting in two dismissal orders. It is important to note that plaintiff still has viable claims remaining under her Second Amended Complaint. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs Motion 122 for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is denied. The parties should be prepared to discuss the progress of discovery and any settlement talks at the next status. Status hearing set for August 8, 2011.Mailed notice (keg, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07367_de128 AdministrativeID "130" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07367_de128 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07367_de128 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07367_de120 @default.