Todd v. Kelley3/10/2000
(Ala. 1989) (emphasis added). " f the court determines ... that a party has had sufficient opportunity to state a claim ... but has failed to do so, leave to amend may be properly denied." Walker v. Traughber, 351 So. 2d 917, 922 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977) (quoted with approval in Stallings v. Angelica Uniform Co., 388 So. 2d at 947).
Todd's motion for leave to amend his complaint stated that, one month earlier, he had taken the depositions of several Millbrook police officers, as well as the personnel manager for the City of Millbrook, and that, based on those depositions, he concluded that the evidence "support a finding of willful, deliberate, intentional, wanton and reckless disregard of [Todd's] First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights" by the existing defendants. Thus, he sought to amend the complaint to sue the existing defendants in their individual capacities. However, based on the fact that Todd's initial complaint alleged that "the defendants acted ... willfully, knowingly, purposely, and with the intent of depriving [Todd] of his [constitutional] rights," the trial court was authorized to conclude that Todd already had information suggesting that the existing defendants could be individually liable and, therefore, that Todd had unduly delayed filing this amendment.
The motion further stated that the depositions indicated that the existing defendants, as well as the three defendants Todd proposed to add by amendment, "acted in concert" with each other to deny Todd his constitutional rights. Thus, Todd sought to amend his complaint to add a conspiracy claim pursuant to § 1985. Because Todd's initial complaint, however, alleged that the defendants had "acted in concert" to deprive him of his rights, the trial court was authorized to conclude that the proposed amendment to add a conspiracy claim against the existing defendants was not based on newly discovered evidence and that Todd had "had sufficient opportunity to state a [conspiracy] claim but failed to do so." Walker v. Traughber, 351 So. 2d at 922. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Todd's motion for leave to amend the complaint to sue the existing defendants in their individual capacities or to add a conspiracy claim against those defendants.
The same cannot be said, however, with respect to the trial court's denial of the amendment seeking to add three new defendants -- Officers Robbie Johnson, P.K. Johnson, and Herbie Cauthen. Todd's motion alleged that he had recently taken the depositions of these three officers, as well as the deposition of P.E.; that the deposition testimony of the three officers, when compared with the deposition testimony of Chief Bradley and P.E., as well as the official radio-log sheets showing which officers had responded to the domestic-disturbance call involving P.E., "indicate a causal link between [the three defendants sought to be added by amendment] in their official capacities, as well as their individual capacities, in violating [Todd's] First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights."
The record shows the following dates for the taking of depositions:
Chief Bradley.........February 1, 1999 P.K. Johnson..........February 22, 1999 Herbie Cauthen........February 22, 1999 P.E...................February 23, 1999 Robbie Johnson........February 23, 1999
The trial court had set a discovery deadline of March 1, 1999. The depositions referred to in Todd's motion to amend were taken before that deadline. Todd moved to add the new defendants on March 24, 1999, one month after taking depositions that, he said, alerted him to the potential liability of three additional defendants, potential liability of which, he claimed, he was no
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|