The Progress of this case will be followed from a central


in chronological order with links to appropriate documents.


             WILLIAM C. HAMMEL,                    |   MEMORANDUM IN
             ALAN J. BELLAMENTE,                   |   SUPPORT OF MOTION
             et al.,                               |   TO AMEND PLAINTIFFS'
                                                   |   COMPLAINT
                  Plaintiffs                       |
                   vs.                             |
             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE          |      No. 2:99:CV-44-T
             INSURANCE CO.,                        |
             STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY,         |
             et al.                                |
                  Defendants                       |

	On November 4, 1999 Plaintiffs filed a motion to the
	Court for a second extension of time for ninety (90) days due
	to incapacitating medical conditions and surgical necessity.
	That motion was granted in an Order filed November 8, 1999.

	Though, those conditions and necessities have not yet been
	fully resolved, Plaintiffs submit their proposed amended
	complaint, together with their Response to  Defendants'
	Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay.

	Since the filing of the previous Motion for Extension of Time,
	Plaintiff Bellamente's third spinal surgery has yet to
	be performed, owing in large measure to the necessities 
	brought about by Plaintiffs' new evidence and the subsequent
	extensive particular and specific pleadings in their amended

	With their proposed amended complaint, Plaintiffs believe that
	they have responded in their Response to Defendants' Motion
	to dismiss, or in Alternative to Stay, appropriately and
	persuasively, and in the substance of their amended complaint
	rectified any deficiencies in pleadings of their first complaint 
	which Defendants noted in their Memorandum in Support of their
	Motion to Dismiss, vel alia.  In accord with their previous
	memorandum, Plaintiffs have engaged in "a completely new
	writing of a more encompassing Complaint.", which is the
	proposed amended complaint.

	Just recently, new evidence has come to light which Plaintiffs
	have not yet had time to evaluate.  While, clearly, an Amended
	Complaint would have been necessary to meet Defendants' Motion
	to Dismiss, and Alternative Motion to Stay, this new evidence
	suggests a completely new writing of a more encompassing Complaint.

	In defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum in
	Support, for enlargement of time, they have indicated that they
	would engage either Plaintiffs' Response or Amended Complaint.
	The Court has explicitly used the "and/or" in its responsive
	Order and Plaintiffs avail themselves of both.

	Given the expansion and volume of the amended complaint,
	Plaintiffs will not object to Defendants' motions to any
	reasonable enlargement of time to respond.

	THEREFORE, Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint

	should be granted.

        William C. Hammel                     Alan J. Bellamente
        A-11 Moose Branch Road,               A-11 Moose Branch Road,
	Sweetwater Apartments 1A,             Sweetwater Apartments 8A,
        Robbinsville, NC 28771                Robbinsville, NC 28771
        (828) 479-1547                        (828) 479-1547

                     /S/                                /S/
        -------------------------------      ------------------------------
        William C. Hammel                     Alan J. Bellamente

        DATE: February 4, 2000                DATE: February 4, 2000


Top of Page
Home Page
Insurance Page
Uncivilization and its Discontents
Essay Page

Email me, Bill Hammel at
bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us

The URL for this document is:
Created: February 4, 2000
Last Updated: May 28, 2000