In Iatric Systems, Inc. v. Hamilton Health Sciences Corp., the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts permitted a late amendment to the defendant’s answer to assert a Chapter 93A counterclaim. The dispute arose from a long-running contractual relationship involving health care information technology services, centered on the scope of a 2017 licensing agreement. During discovery, the defendant uncovered internal communications that it contended evidenced bad-faith conduct by the plaintiff and moved to extend discovery and amend its answer. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15’s “good cause” standard, the court credited the defendant’s explanation that the factual basis for the claim was previously unavailable, finding the delay attributable to newly discovered evidence rather than a lack of diligence or gamesmanship.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s futility challenge to the amendment. First, though both parties are now located outside of Massachusetts, the alleged conduct occurred when the plaintiff was a Massachusetts-based company with Massachusetts-based employees. These allegations, accepted as true at the pleading stage, were sufficient to support a finding that the conduct occurred “primarily and substantially” within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Additionally, the futility arguments faced a high bar where a proposed claim is grounded in newly discovered, non-conclusory facts that overlap with the core contractual allegations in the complaint. Ultimately, the court noted that the claim did not materially expand the scope of the case and discovery remained ongoing. The court further found that the claim was based on nearly identical facts to those underlying the complaint, which would minimize any incremental burden on the plaintiff.
Newly uncovered evidence may unlock Chapter 93A exposure late in the case, especially where the claim tracks the core dispute and avoids materially expanding the litigation’s scope.
