- 9 -
of petitioners’ responding to the affirmative allegations of
fraud in the answer, and that this was only 4 days before the
reply was filed. Respondent argues from this that petitioners’
failure to deny the affirmative allegations was not an
inadvertent mistake. Respondent also asserts that, if
petitioners are allowed to amend their reply, and if the Court
then denies respondent’s summary judgment motion, then discovery
will be required. Respondent argues that so little time remained
for discovery before the then-impending trial date that
respondent will be prejudiced if petitioners are allowed to amend
their reply.
We agree with petitioners that they should be allowed to
file an amended reply.
The first three sentences of Rule 41(a), set forth supra
note 8, “are derived from FRCP 15(a), and reflect a liberal
attitude toward amendment of pleadings.” Explanatory Note to
Rule 41(a), 60 T.C. 1089. This Court has looked to cases decided
under rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
guidance on the interpretation of Rule 41(a). Kramer v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1081, 1084-1085 (1987). Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also states that leave to amend
“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Rule 15(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reflects a generous attitude
toward amendment; however, the leave petitioners seek is not a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011