Peterson v. Castano

Present: 	All the Justices
EMERY C. PETERSON
OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.
v. 	Record No. 992478 	September 15, 2000
LORENZO CASTANO, ET AL.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
John E. Kloch, Judge
In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court
erred by denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his motions
for judgment to increase each ad damnum clause.
Plaintiff, Emery C. Peterson, was injured in a motor
vehicle accident in Alexandria on April 10, 1996. 	He filed a
motion for judgment against Lorenzo M. Castano and his
employer, El Mercado, Inc., and alleged that Castano's
negligent operation of a motor vehicle was a proximate cause
of the plaintiff's injuries. 	The plaintiff also filed a
separate motion for judgment against another driver of a motor
vehicle involved in the same accident, Hira Naimi, and alleged
that her negligence was also a proximate cause of his
injuries. 	The plaintiff sought damages of $50,000 in each
motion for judgment.
The circuit court consolidated the motions for judgment,
and the litigants agreed upon a pretrial order which
established a discovery deadline date of January 1, 1999 and a
trial date of February 1, 1999. 	In June 1998, in response to

an interrogatory propounded by the defendants, the plaintiff
stated that he had injured his neck and back in the accident
and that he considered his "back injuries to be permanent."
On December 11, 1998, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend
his motions for judgment to increase each ad damnum clause
from $50,000 to $150,000. 	The circuit court denied the
motion. 	Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to
reconsider, or in the alternative, to grant him a nonsuit.
The circuit court denied the motion.
On February 1, 1999, the date scheduled for trial, the
plaintiff requested a continuance because he was ill. 	The
circuit court granted the motion and set a new trial date for
July 26, 1999. 	The plaintiff also requested permission to
increase each ad damnum clause to $150,000. 	The circuit court
did not grant the motion and entered an order dated February
17, 1999 stating that "the Court will not entertain any
further motion by Plaintiff to Amend his Motion for Judgment
to Increase his Ad Damnum Clause."
At the beginning of the jury trial in July 1999, the
plaintiff again made a motion to amend the motion for judgment
to increase each ad damnum clause to $150,000. 	The circuit
court denied the motion. 	At the conclusion of the trial, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against all
defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $150,000.
2

The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
in the amount of $50,000. 	The plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in
denying his motion to amend the motions for judgment to
increase each ad damnum clause. 	The plaintiff, relying upon
Rule 1:8, argues that leave to amend pleadings should be
liberally granted and that the defendants would not have been
prejudiced had the circuit court granted his motion.
Continuing, the plaintiff argues that had the circuit court
permitted him to increase each ad damnum clause when it
continued the trial date from February to July, the defendants
would have had sufficient time to undertake any additional
discovery had they so desired.
Responding, defendant Naimi asserts that the circuit
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's
motions. 	Naimi points out that the plaintiff was aware that
his injuries were allegedly permanent at least four months
before he filed his initial motion to amend the motions for
judgment to increase each ad damnum clause. 	Defendants
Castano and El Mercado contend that the circuit court properly
denied the plaintiff's initial motion to amend the motions for
judgment to increase each ad damnum clause because of the
potential prejudice to the defendants, the plaintiff's
purported history of avoidance and delay, and further
3

potential delay which would have occurred had the motion been
granted. 	These defendants say that when the plaintiff filed
his initial motion to amend the motion for judgment to
increase each ad damnum clause, the trial date was rapidly
approaching, and the plaintiff's failure to respond timely to
discovery would have precluded the defendants from taking the
discovery deposition of the plaintiff's treating physician
without extending the discovery period.
Continuing, defendants Castano and El Mercado observe
that circuit courts have the inherent right and duty to
control their trial dockets and to ensure that cases proceed
to conclusion in an orderly and predictable manner. 	These
defendants contend that the circuit court properly denied the
plaintiff's subsequent motions to amend his motions for
judgment to increase each ad damnum clause, including the
February 1, 1999 motion, because the circuit court's earlier
rulings were "just and proper and no additional information
was presented."
Rule 1:8 states in relevant part:
"No amendments shall be made to any pleading
after it is filed save by leave of court. 	Leave to
amend shall be liberally granted in furtherance of
the ends of justice."
We have consistently held that the decision to permit
amendments of pleadings rests within the sound discretion of
4

the circuit court. 	Adkins v. Dixon, 253 Va. 275, 279, 482
S.E.2d 797, 800, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 937 (1997); Brown v.
Brown, 244 Va. 319, 324, 422 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1992). 	When
deciding whether to grant a motion to amend a motion for
judgment to increase an ad damnum clause, a circuit court must
consider whether the defendant will be prejudiced and whether
such prejudice will affect the defendant's ability to have a
fair trial. 	The circuit court must also consider the
plaintiff's right to be compensated fully for any damages
caused by the defendant's acts or omissions. 	On appeal, our
review of the circuit court's decision to grant or deny a
motion to amend a motion for judgment to increase the ad
damnum clause is limited to the issue whether the circuit
court abused its discretion. 	See Hetland v. Worcester Mut.
Ins. Co., 231 Va. 44, 46, 340 S.E.2d 574, 575 (1986).
The record in this case reveals that the plaintiff made
motions to amend his motions for judgment to increase each ad
damnum clause on several dates: 	December 11, 1998; January
13, 1999; February 1, 1999; and July 26, 1999. 	Because we are
of the view that the circuit court abused its discretion in
denying the plaintiff's motion to amend made on February 1,
1999, we need not consider whether the circuit court abused
its discretion when denying the plaintiff's other motions.
5

On February 1, 1999, the plaintiff requested a
continuance and leave to amend the motions for judgment to
increase each ad damnum clause. 	As we have already stated, on
that date, the circuit court continued the trial until July
1999. 	The defendants fail to explain, and the record does not
show, how they would have been prejudiced had the circuit
court permitted the plaintiff to increase the amount of each
ad damnum clause after the trial date had been continued.
And, Rule 1:8 mandates that leave to amend shall be liberally
granted in furtherance of the ends of justice. 	Mortarino v.
Consultant Engineering Services, 251 Va. 289, 295-96, 467
S.E.2d 778, 782 (1996).
We hold that the circuit court abused its discretion by
denying the plaintiff's February 1, 1999 request to amend his
motions for judgment to increase each ad damnum clause because
there is no evidence that the defendants would have suffered
any prejudice, and the amendment would have been in
furtherance of the ends of justice. 	We recognize, as
defendants Castano and El Mercado observe, that a court must
control its docket to avoid unnecessary delay to the
litigants. 	And, we expect that courts will adjudicate cases
in a timely manner. 	However, a litigant's right to a fair
trial must not be made subordinate to the judiciary's efforts
to control its docket.
6

Accordingly, we will affirm that portion of the judgment
holding that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff. 	We
will reverse that portion of the judgment that assesses the
plaintiff's damages. 	We will remand this proceeding with
directions that the circuit court permit the plaintiff to
amend his motions for judgment to increase each ad damnum
clause, and on remand, the plaintiff will be entitled to a
trial on the issue of damages only.
Affirmed in part,
reversed in part,
and remanded.
7