The decedent was a career aircraft mechanic at Belle Chasse Air Force Base, and died of mesothelioma. The decedent’s heirs sued nine defendants in state court for asbestos exposure; defendant Boeing Company removed to federal court. After the deadline to amend pleadings, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to continue the trial date so that they could add the manufacturers of additional aircrafts, and to establish a new scheduling order and trial date. The court declined to continue the trial date, but allowed the plaintiffs to add defendants Lockheed and General Dynamics. After this case was reassigned to a different section, both new defendants filed motions for reconsideration and to strike the amended complaint, which were denied.
Orders granting or denying motions to add new parties are interlocutory orders. Generally, courts in that district evaluate motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the standards outlined in Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment. “A moving party must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) the movant presents new evidence; (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and, (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.” Further, when a successor replaces another judge, the successor has discretion to reconsider the first judge’s order.
Although Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants leave to amend the pleadings freely, Rule 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings after a scheduling order deadline has expired. Pursuant to Rule 16(b), schedules can be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court applied the four-factor balancing test outlined by the 5th Circuit: “to determine whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order by weighing (1) the explanation for the failure to adhere to the deadline at issue; (2) the importance of the proposed modification to the scheduling order; (3) potential prejudice; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” The court distinguished the instant case from that cited by Lockheed and General Dynamics because this case involved asbestos exposure occurring over a number of years, versus the single occurrence at issue in the case cited by the defendants. Given the unique difficulties associated with discovery in latent disease cases, the court did not commit a manifest error in granting permission to amend the complaint. The defendants did not suffer substantial prejudice, and the factors identified by the 5th Circuit overall support the original judge’s decision to modify the scheduling order.