Adam Clark v. Vermont Construction Company, Inc.

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, considered Plaintiff Adam Clark’s motion to amend his complaint and remove the expedited-action designation under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 80.11. The court denied removal of the expedited designation because Plaintiff failed to show good cause and the change would prejudice Defendant at a late stage of the proceedings. The court otherwise granted leave to file a second amended complaint and granted Defendant’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to establish good cause under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 80.11(a)(4) to remove the case from expedited-action status. Retaining counsel, changing his litigation strategy, asserting increased damages that were known or reasonably anticipated earlier, and identifying related construction defects did not justify removal at the advanced stage of the case.
2. A party seeking to remove an expedited-action designation and amend the pleadings must satisfy Rule 80.11(a)(4)'s good-cause requirement before the court considers whether the proposed amendment is permissible under Rule 15(a).
3. The motion to amend was granted insofar as plaintiff sought to file a second amended complaint, because the proposed amendments were relatively minor and did not affect the overall status of the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff demonstrated good cause under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 80.11(a)(4) to remove the case from expedited-action status.
2. Whether plaintiff could rely on the liberal amendment standard of Rule 15(a) without first satisfying Rule 80.11(a)(4)'s good-cause requirement.
3. Whether plaintiff should be permitted to file a second amended complaint despite the late stage of the proceedings.
4. Whether defendant should be granted leave to file a sur-reply.

Disposition

other