Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

II__—III-_———_—M I I
Case 3:03-cv-OO98§5-JCH Document 39 Filed O4/28/2004 Page 1 of 1 - I ¤
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E D
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I I
, ·2tIIII•HAH1b Aigtgq I
SUSAN E. WOOD, ) U·S· DISTRICT COURT
) CIVIL ACTION NO' B IDGEPORT. CONN I _
Plaintiff, ) 3: 03 CV 986 (JCH) $ I
) .
- against- ) I
> I
SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING ) March 15, 2004 _
CORPORATION, ) I
)
Defendant. ) I
........ .......Y> IE I
I
I
1I I
DEFENDAN'I"S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER
I I
I I
Pursuant to Rule l5(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Sempra
I
Energy Trading Corp. ("Sempra") respectfully moves the Court for leave to amend its Answer in p
I. I
Qiiis case. Specifically, Sempra seeks to add two affirmative defenses to Plaintiff s claims for
I
N Q egligence and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: (1) Plaintiff" s
I I II negligence claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Connecticut Workers’
IE ompenfsation Act; and (2) Plaintiff’ s claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and
cj rv} ·I*f_
@ deaéiag because Plaintiff has adequate statutory remedies. SQ First Amended I _
- cl. . ‘- §;‘£gswegCElewE;ei1grt;Ii and Twelfth Affirmative Defenses (attached hereto at Tab l).
L_;......,., jj ji? I
g 3; set forth fully in Semprafs Memorandum of Law, submitted in support of its I I
"’- I ` si -3.53 I
I motiogié Plaigfiff cannot show the requisite bad faith or undue prejudice necessary to warrant I
. I enial of Sempra’s motion. Consequently, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. l5(a), the Court should
"II: to I= I
. _Z_ I
Ii I I
{*5 II I
§ JORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED I
VTESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED

I