Opinion
Case No. A1-04-09, Docket No. 36.
September 30, 2004
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
Before the Court is Sheehan Pipeline Construction Company's Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim filed on September 9, 2004. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 2, 2004, the defendant, Sheehan Pipeline Construction Company ("Sheehan"), filed an Answer and Counterclaim seeking damages for breach of contract. On September 9, 2004, Sheehan filed a Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim to include the following claims (1) breach of contract — retainage; (2) breach of contract — additional charges; (3) breach of contract — weather charges; (4) reformation of contract; (5) detrimental reliance/estoppel; and (6) quantum meruit.
On September 22, 2004, the plaintiff, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company ("Williston Basin") filed a response in opposition to Sheehan's motion to the extent that it seeks to add a claim for quantum meruit. Williston Basin contends that Sheehan cannot maintain a claim for quantum meruit by virtue of the fact that an express contract exists between the parties.
In a reply dated September 28, 2004, Sheehan asserted that, given the posture of this case, it would be premature to disallow a claim for quantum meruit as it is uncertain whether such a claim is inconsistent with or superceded by the parties' contract. According to Sheehan, Williston Basin has on occasion stated that work was requested and performed outside the scope of the parties contract. Sheehan's believes that Williston Basin will continue to assert that some of Sheehan's work was extra-contractual. Thus, Sheehan maintains that, to the extent Williston Basin takes such a position, quantum meruit is available to recover extra-contractual damages.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that "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). It is generally left to the Court's discretion whether to grant leave to file an amended complaint. Krispin v. May Dep't Stores Co., 218 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir. 2000); Gamma-10 Plastics, Inc. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 32 F.3d 1244, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v. Little Rock Municipal Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 224 (8th Cir. 1994); Brown v. Wallace, 957 F.2d 564, 566 (8th Cir. 1992).
Unless there is good reason for denial, namely undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment, leave to amend is generally granted. Becker v. Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha, 191 F.3d 904, 908 (8th Cir. 1999); Brown v. Wallace, 957 F.2d 564, 566. Although a party does not have an absolute right to amend his complaint, such motion should only be denied on the merits if it asserts clearly frivolous claims or defenses. See Becker v. Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha, 191 F.3d 904, 908 (citing Williams v. Little Rock Municipal Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 224 andGammas-10 Plastics, Inc. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 32 F.3d 1244, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1198 (1995)). "Likelihood of success on the new claim or defense is not a consideration for denying leave to amend unless the claim is clearly frivolous." Becker v. Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha, 191 F.3d 904, 908.
Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court is not persuaded at this stage of the frivolity or futility of Sheehan's proposed amendment, namely the inclusion of a quantum meruit claim. A claim for quantum meruit is essentially a claim for unjust enrichment, quasi-contract, or implied-in-law contract. See Allied Realty, Inc. v. Boyer, 302 N.W.2d 774, 779 (N.D. 1981);BTA Oil Producers v. MDU Resources Group, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 873, 884-85 (N.D. 2002). The Court is cognizant of the fact that many jurisdictions do not recognize such a claim in instances when an express contract exists between the parties. See BTA Oil Producers v. MDU Resources Group, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 873, 884-85 (N.D. 2002); Maxted v. Barrett, 643 P.2d 1161, 1164 (Mont. 2002); Sowerwine v. Keith, 997 P.2d 1018, 1021 (Wyo. 2000). However, Sheehan has raised the issue of extra-contractual work it allegedly performed at Williston Basin's request. Whether Sheehan will be able to maintain a claim for quantum meruit on these grounds remains to be seen. Nevertheless, given the current posture of this case, granting Sheehan leave to amend its answer and counterclaims will not prejudice Williston Basin
The Court GRANTS Sheehan's Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim (Docket No. 18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.