A federal district court in Delaware refused to allow a party resisting arbitration to amend his complaint, by adding claims and a new defendant, after the complaint had already been dismissed.

In Kelly v. MBNA America Bank, Civ. A. No. 06-228-JJF, 2008 WL 54305 (D. Del. Jan. 3, 2008), Kelly brought claims against MBNA regarding a credit card account. After all of Kelly's claims were dismissed by the Court, including claims originally brought against the arbitration administrator named in the parties' agreement, Kelly moved to amend his complaint, adding new claims and adding Bank of America as a new defendant.

In denying Kelly's motion to amend, the Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties and that Kelly's added claims appeared to fall within the scope of the agreement. Also, since Kelly's court claims against Bank of America were "legally insufficient," the Court deemed the attempt to add Bank of America as "futile."

Furthermore, the Court observed that the additional claims in Kelly's proposed amendment were insufficient, conclusory, and similar to claims previously raised and summarily dismissed.