Brinson v. University Hospital, Inc. et al, No. 1:2010cv00424 - Document 58 (S.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 42 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, denying as moot 36 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 37 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 3/17/2011. (km1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION KELLY BRINSON II, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : NO. 1:10-CV-00424 ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 42), Defendants Weibel, Reeme, McDaniel, Sprague, Proctor and Kidd s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 36), and Defendants University Hospital, Inc., The Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati, Lee Ann Liska, Jennifer Moore, M.D., and John Vraciu, D.O. s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 37), together with the respective responsive memoranda. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff s motion (doc. 42) and DENIES as moot Defendants motions (docs. 36 & 37). Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on December 22, 2010, setting forth claims for civil wrongful death and malpractice (doc. 31). rights violations, Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint to provide more detailed factual allegations to support his claims against Defendants Weibel, Reeme, McDaniel, Sprague, Proctor and Kidd and to add a claim for disability 1 discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Ohio Civil Rights Act (doc. 42). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides in pertinent part: A party may amend the party s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.... Otherwise a party may amend the party s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The United States Supreme Court has held that motions for leave to amend pleadings should be liberally granted unless the motions are brought in bad faith or the proposed amendments would cause undue prejudice the opposing parties. delay, be futile, or unfairly Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 561 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 1982)). The Court finds no evidence of bad faith here and further finds that allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint will not cause undue delay, be futile or unfairly prejudice Defendants. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 42). Because Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint provides additional factual allegations that could address some of Defendant Weibel, Reeme, McDaniel, Sprague, Proctor and Kidd s concerns set 2 forth in their motion to dismiss, and because the Second Amended Complaint Defendants adds a disability University discrimination Hospital, Inc., The claim Health to which Alliance of Greater Cincinnati, Lee Ann Liska, Jennifer Moore, M.D., and John Vraciu, D.O. will likely wish to respond, the Court finds that the pending motions to dismiss are moot. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motions (docs. 36 & 37), but GRANTS leave to Defendants to refile any such motions attacking the Second Amended Complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 17, 2011 /s/ S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
