Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Any Way You Slice It, New Causes of Action Cannot Be Stated Via Amendment to Complaint After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

By Daniel Cummins on December 3, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Any Way You Slice It, New Causes of Action Cannot Be Stated Via Amendment to Complaint After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

In the case of Slice, Slice Baby, LLC v. Armetta, No. 2019-CV-153 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 8, 2024, Nealon, J.), the court addressed various issues in a case involving a dispute over issues regarding a lease agreement involving a pizza restaurant.

Among the issues addressed by the court was whether a Plaintiff may secure leave of court to amend the Complaint to assert new causes of action after the statute of limitations on the claims presented have expired.

In this case, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave of court to amend the Complaint to assert five new causes of action and to include four additional Defendants.

Judge Nealon reviewed the case and the applicable statute of limitations and ruled that the limitations period had expired on four of the five new claims and, as such, those claims were not permitted. The court did allow the Plaintiff to assert a new cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against one additional Defendant.

Relative to the Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment of Non Pros based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to litigate this action with reasonable promptitude, after reviewing the record before him, Judge Nealon noted that the Defendant had not identified any prejudice that the Defendant had suffered as a result of the Plaintiff’s lack of reasonable diligence in pushing this litigation ahead. As such, the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment for Non Pros was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Photo of Daniel Cummins Daniel Cummins

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in…

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in the Best Lawyers in America Director every year since 2015. He is the creator and sole author of Tort Talk, a blog dedicated to discussing updates, trends, and thoughts regarding Civil Litigation Law.

Read more about Daniel CumminsEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Civil Litigation
  • Blog:
    Tort Talk
  • Organization:
    Foley, Comerford & Cummins
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status

New to the Network

  • Agha Law blog
  • Woven Legal Blog
  • Bid Protests
  • Contract Claims
  • Federal Procurement
Copyright © 2024, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo