RLF Liquidating, LLC v. McDonald Brothers, Inc.

A motion for leave to amend should be granted if it "would neither change nor add a claim or defense" and "it would not prejudice plaintiff[.]" Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 OrApp 139 (1999).

Defendants appealed a judgment entered against them in a collection action for attorney fees. Defendant made three assignments of error, though the Court only addressed the first: the trial court's denial of their motion for leave to amend their answer so they may correct an inadvertent admission. On appeal, Defendant argued that because the amendment was curative in nature and not to add a new claim or defense, their motion should have been approved. In response, Plaintiff argued that the motion would result in "obvious prejudice" to it because of its temporal proximity to trial. A motion for leave to amend should be granted if it "would neither change nor add a claim or defense" and "it would not prejudice plaintiff[.]" Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 OrApp 139 (1999). The Court held that because the proposed amendment was to cure a defect and not add a claim or defense and would not prejudice Plaintiff, the motion for leave to amend should have been granted. Reversed and remanded.