Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Snider et al
ORDER GRANTING 32 MOTION for Leave to amend complaint; plaintiff shall have until 11/9/2012 to file an Amended Complaint, as further set out in order; further ORDERING that the Sniders' 34 motion to dismiss and response to motion to amend complaint is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 11/2/12. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
HOWARD SNIDER; PAM SNIDER;
JEFF BEALE HOMES and JEFF BEALE,
CASE NO. 2:11-cv-215-MEF
(WO – Do Not Publish)
This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiff Pennsylvania National Mutual
Casualty Insurance Company seeks a determination of its duty to defend Defendants Jeff
Beale and Jeff Beale Homes (the “Beale Defendants”) with respect to the claims asserted
against them by Defendants Howard and Pam Snider (the “Sniders”) in an underlying state
court action.1 In its original Complaint, Plaintiff had also sought a declaratory judgment as
to its duty to indemnify the Beale Defendants. (Doc. #1.) However, on February 27, 2012,
this Court dismissed that claim on ripeness grounds, as a judgment had not yet been entered
against the Beale Defendants in the underlying state court action. (Doc. #24.)
On October 2, 2012, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Sniders, and against the
Beale Defendants, in the amount of $700,000 in the underlying state court action. As a
result, on October 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint “to seek
The underlying state court action is styled Snider, et al. v. Jeff Beale, et al., Case No. 2007cv-900281 (Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama).
a determination of its duty to indemnify Beale for the verdict entered against it.” (Doc. #32).
In response, on October 11, 2012, the Sniders filed a Motion to Dismiss and Response to
Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. #34), arguing that this matter is due to be dismissed in
its entirety. More specifically, the Sniders claim in their Motion to Dismiss that, given the
jury’s verdict in the underlying state court action, this Court now lacks jurisdiction to allow
an amendment to Plaintiff’s Complaint until after November 1, 2012, the time at which the
Sniders’ substantive right to proceed against Plaintiff, as judgment creditors of the Beale
Defendants, would purportedly accrue. (Doc. #34.)
This Court does not find merit in the Sniders’ argument. See Atlanta Gas Light Co.
v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 68 F.3d 409, 415 n.12 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)
permits the filing of supplemental pleadings in order to assert claims maturing after the filing
of the complaint . . . .”). Accordingly, having considered the foregoing motions, and for
good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint (Doc. #32) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until November 9, 2012, to file
an Amended Complaint that complies with Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules for the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for Civil and Criminal Cases, which
provides, in pertinent part: “Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of
course or upon a motion to amend, must, except by leave of court, reproduce the entire
pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” It is further
ORDERED that the Sniders’ Motion to Dismiss and Response to Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. #34) is hereby DENIED.
DONE this the 2nd day of November, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
United States District Court Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?