University:
University of California, Berkeley
Course:
Law 200.2 | Civil Procedure for LL.M.Students
Academic year:

2022
Views:

478

Pages:

2
Author:

Marin Mason

Beeck v. Aquaslide N Dive (US Court of Appeals for 8th Cir., 1977) Case Brief Parties Notes from Class -Beeck/P and Aquaslide/D Underlying -Federal court based on diversity jdx Facts -Beeck injured by waterslide he said Aquaslide mfg -After inspecting, realized Aquaslide didn’t mfg Procedural History -Aquaslide moved to amend pleading to deny mfg Issue(s) -Whether a defendant who initially admits manufacture may amend its pleading to deny manufacture. Holding(s) -Yes. Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)[2], a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party, and the court should freely grant leave when justice so requires. -3 different insurance agents determine the slide is mfg by Aquaslide -Owner of Aquaslide goes out after SoL and determines it’s not their slide -Court granted motion and ordered trial on whether Aquaslide was the mfr -Beeck appeals after claim dismissed and says court abused discretion in allowing Aquaslide to amend Rule(s) -A party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or written consent of the adverse party and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Court’s Reasoning -A motion to amend is generally granted unless there is bad faith, undue delay or repeated failure to fix issues -DC found that there would be no prejudice to Beeck and Aquaslide did not lack diligence in its investigation Was it an abuse of discretion to grant leave to amend to the mfr in order to deny admissions after running of SoL? Hinges on prejudice if this is granted or denied Plaintiff prejudice: SoL- no relief, unclear whether alternate legal claims could prevail Aquaslide prejudice: if allowed to amend, becomes a factual issue and the plaintiff could still argue factual issue at trial Disposition/ -Judgement Affirmed, plaintiff loses Procedural Result Other Notes -