John Doe v. Carnival Corporation
Motion for Leave
Our cruise ship trial lawyers work to make sure that passengers get their day in court. In this motion, one of our maritime lawyers asks the Court for leave to add new claims to a passengers complaint. The additional claims provide multiple avenues of recovery and allow the Plaintiff to recover for all of the damages he suffered as a result of his cruise ship accident.
UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, JOHN DOE, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15, hereby moves for leave to file an amended complaint, attached hereto as exhibit 1, and as grounds therefore states as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this matter on November 26, 2013 [D.E. 1] against Defendant CARNIVAL CORPORATION.
2. Due to a clerical error, Plaintiff did not include several counts and a punitive damage demand in his wherefore clause. These counts and the punitive damage demand should be included in Plaintiff’s complaint as he was injured on the Carnival Triumph’s infamous cruise that lost power in the Gulf of Mexico. Plaintiff did not immediately remedy this error as the parties were hopeful that they would reach a resolution at the Court ordered early mediation. Accordingly, rather than amend and require Defendant to file a new motion to dismiss, Plaintiff waited to see if the parties would resolve through mediation.
3. The parties mediated this matter on March 5th, 2014 and reached an impasse. Although the parties are hopeful that the completion of further discovery will facilitate meaningful settlement negotiations, Plaintiff must now amend to include his necessary additional counts and punitive damage demand.
4. Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend shall be “freely given when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’ ” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). No reasons to deny amendment exists herein.
5. The Defendants will not be prejudiced by the allowance of amendment because only limited discovery into Plaintiff’s claims has been conducted, thus no work will need to be duplicated. Alternatively, the Plaintiff will be prejudiced should this Honorable Court not allow him to amend as he will forever lose his additional claims and damage demand.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant the instant motion and deem the attached amended complaint as filed.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
In accord with Local Rule 7.1, Plaintiff contacted counsel for the Defendant, who stated that the Defendant is opposed to the relief sought herein.
LIPCON, MARGULIES, ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Suite 1776, One Biscayne Tower
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 373-3016
Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
By: /s/ Eric Charles Morales;
ERIC C. MORALES
FLORIDA BAR # 91875