Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Cox

“We balance four factors in determining whether a court permissibly exercised its discretion [over a petitioned leave to amend]: ‘(1) the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and (4) the colorable merit of the proposed amendment.” Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145, 986, P2d 54 (1999) rev den 329, Or 589 (2000).

Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to deny his last-minute leave to amend his response to the garnishment claims against him. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s decision "disallowing his claim for recoupment and refusing him the opportunity to call witnesses to prove it." On appeal, Defendant asserted that the trial court’s actions were in effect the granting of an ORCP 21 failure to state a claim action when he claims his amendment would have been “meritorious.” “We balance four factors in determining whether a court permissibly exercised its discretion [over a petitioned leave to amend]: ‘(1) the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and (4) the colorable merit of the proposed amendment.” Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145, 986, P2d 54 (1999) rev den 329, Or 589 (2000). In rendering its decision, the Court found: (1) Defendant’s original answer “made factual assertions regarding the validity and terms of [Respondent’s] contingent fee agreement and the reasonableness of the fees,” which were a wholly different from the claim of recoupment; (2) allowing such an amendment would be unfairly prejudicial to Respondents who “had been operating for months under a particular understanding of what issues the hearing would consider. Those issues did not include the question of recoupement”; (3) “because [Defendant] gave so little notification and the request presented new and distinct claims” an extension on the hearing would be necessary for all parties to be prepared to defend; (4) such a claim would have by necessity required the introduction of expert testimony. The Court found that on these ends, the trial court acted in its discretion in refusing to hear Defendant’s recoupment claim. Affirmed.