United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
K. DuBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint" to add Mulheim
Pipecoatings BmgH as a party Defendant (Doc. 44), and
Defendant's response. (Doc. 46).
March 1, 2018, Plaintiff Ronald Kimbrough (Kimbrough)
initiated this case for workers compensation (Count I), AEMLD
(Count II), negligence (Count III), wantonness (Count IV),
and combined and concurring conduct (Count VI), by filing a
complaint against defendants Berg Spiral Pipe Corp., Elevate!
Workforce, Inc., Elwood Staffing Services, Inc., individual
Ronald Green, and certain fictitious defendants, in the
Mobile County Circuit Court (No. 02-CV-2018-900546). (Doc.
2-1). In May 2019, Kimbrough amended the complaint to add
Infineon Technologies, AG as a Defendant, and in October
2018, Kimbrough again amended the complaint to add as a
defendant Mulheim Pipe Coatings, GMbH (Mulheim). Litigation
proceeded in state court, resulting in a January 11, 2019
order approving final settlement of the workers'
compensation claim and dismissing such claims with prejudice
as to certain defendants, but not Mulheim and not Green (the
last remaining defendants).
the dismissal, on February 8, 2019, Mulheim removed this case
to federal court within 30 days of receipt of the Mobile
County Circuit Court's dismissal, basing removal on its
receipt of "other paper" from which it claims to
have first ascertained that the case had become removable.
(Doc. 2 at 3). Mulheim removed this case on the basis of
federal diversity subject matter jurisdiction, as
supplemented. (Docs. 1, 2, 3).
April 16, 2019, Kimbrough filed an amended complaint, adding
defendant Riedl Leuenstern GmbH Maschinenbau-und
Steuerungstechnik (Riedl). (Doc. 20). On June 14, 2019, based
on a joint motion for same, Mulheim was dismissed without
prejudice as a defendant. (Doc. 27). Kimbrough now seeks,
with Defendants' consent, to add Mulheim back as a party
defendant. (Docs. 44, 46).
Motion to Amend 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the avenue
for amending complaints. Rule 15(a) provides for amendments
as a matter of course within a 21-day time frame. Rule
15(a)(2) provides an alternative avenue for amendment outside
of the 21-day window. See e.g., Murphy v.
Secretary, U.S. Department of Army, 769 Fed.Appx. 779,
783 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Once 21 days have passed since
filing a complaint, a party may amend her pleading only with
the opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave.”). Specifically, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(a) Amendments Before Trial …
(2) Other Amendments. In all other
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave. The
court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
21-day window to amend as a matter of course has passed,
Kimbrough seeks Rule 15(a)(2) leave of court to add Mulheim
as a party defendant. As explained by Plaintiff:
....Mulheim was a party....Mulheim was dismissed after filing
an affidavit stating it was not responsible for the design,
manufacture and/or sale of the equipment. Plaintiff obtained
information that indicates Mulheim was in fact involved in
the design, manufacture and/or sale of the subject equipment.
Mulheim needs to be added to the suit as a party defendant to
determine whether it has any responsibility for
(Doc. 44 at 1).
initial review of Kimbrough's motion to amend his
complaint indicated that it was not filed with
defendant's consent. (Doc. 44). The court ordered a
response from defendant. (Doc. 45). Defendant has now
consented. (Doc. 46). As such, ...