Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.

Filing 57

OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that:(1) Def Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.'s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 51 ) is granted. (2) Def Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. is allowed to file its amended answer, etc., by no later than 9/15/2021. Plf Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation is allowed to file its response by no later than 9/29/2021. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/8/2021. (cwl, )

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 8

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ALABAMA MUNICIPAL
INSURANCE CORPORATION, a
non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
MUNICH REINSURANCE
AMERICA, INC., a foreign
corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:20cv300-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This

case

comes

before

the

court

on

defendant

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.’s motion for leave to
file

a

second

Plaintiff
(AMIC)

amended

Alabama

sued

Munich

answer

Municipal
regarding

and

counterclaim.

Insurance
agreements,

Corporation
which

the

parties call “treaties,” that Munich allegedly breached
by failing to pay certain reinsurance billings.

Alabama

Mun.

Ins.

Corp.

v.

Munich

Reinsurance

See
Am.,

Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2021 WL 981495 (M.D. Ala.
2021) (Thompson, J.) (discussing case in more detail).

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 8

After filing an initial answer and motion to dismiss
certain counts (which motion was granted), Munich moved
for

leave

to

counterclaim
regarding

file
for

the

an

amended

declaratory

parties’

answer

relief

rights

and

add

against

under

the

a

AMIC

relevant

treaties.

See Def.’s First Mot. for Leave to Amend

(Doc. 45).

That motion was granted.

See Alabama Mun.

Ins. Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., 2021 WL
2392421 (M.D. Ala. 2021) (Thompson, J.).

Munich now

moves for leave to file a second amended answer and add
two counts for declaratory relief to its counterclaim.

See Def.’s Mot. (Doc. 51).
below,

Munich’s

motion

For the reasons discussed

for

leave

to

amend

will

be

amendments

to

granted.
As

stated

pleadings

are

Procedure 15.

in

the

governed

prior
by

opinion,
Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Under Rule 15(a)(2), once the time to

amend as a matter of course has expired, a party may
amend only with the opposing party’s written consent or
2

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 8

the court’s leave.
with

its

previous

leave to amend.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
motion,

Munich

seeks

the

As

court’s

The decision whether to grant leave to

amend a pleading is “committed to the sound discretion
of the trial court,” Shipner v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 868
F.2d 401, 406 (11th Cir. 1989), and Rule 15 urges that
“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires,”
Circuit

Fed.

Court

R.

of

Civ.
Appeals

P.

15(a)(2).

has

policy of liberal amendment.”

therefore

The

Eleventh

“accepted

a

United States for Use &

Benefit of Krupp Steel Products, Inc. v. Aetna Ins.
Co., 831 F.2d 978, 983 (11th Cir. 1987).

However, a

motion to amend may be denied “(1) where there has been
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed; (2) where allowing amendment would cause undue
prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where amendment
would be futile.”

Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161,

1163 (11th Cir. 2001).
3

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 8

The

court

finds,

under

Rule

15(a)(2),

that

“justice ... requires” granting Munich leave to amend
its

answer

and

counterclaim.

AMIC’s

complaint,

Munich’s counterclaim, and Munich’s proposed additions
to

its

counterclaim

raise

a

common

question

of

the

parties’ rights and obligations under the reinsurance
contracts,
management

including
and

reporting

AMIC’s

alleged

litigation

responsibilities.

Allowing

the amendment will facilitate the efficient resolution
of these claims.
AMIC argues that Munich unduly delayed in moving
for leave to add these two additional counts to its
counterclaim.

See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 54) at 2–3.

AMIC fails to identify any delay that is undue.

But

Munich

filed its motion for leave to file a second amended
answer

and

amending
another

counterclaim

pleadings,
eight

(Doc. 44).

and

months.

prior

to

discovery

the

deadline

remains

open

for
for

See Uniform Scheduling Order

Further, Munich asserts, and AMIC does not
4

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 8

contest,

that

underlying

the

Munich
added

received

counts

the

information

approximately

two

See Def.’s Mot. (Doc. 51)

before filing this motion.

at 3–4; see also Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 54) at 2–3.
was

nearly

motion

one

for

leave

counterclaim.
Munich’s

month
to

This

omission

of

weeks

after

Munich

amend

its

answer

undermines
these

filed

any

counts

its
and

inference
from

its

This
first
add

a

that
first

amended answer and counterclaim reflected gamesmanship
or dilatory motive.

The Eleventh Circuit has noted

that “the mere passage of time, without more, is an
insufficient

reason

to

deny

leave

to

amend

a

complaint,”

In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1109

(11th

2014)

Cir.

Hester v. Int’l Union of

(quoting

Operating Eng’rs, 941 F.2d 1574, 1578–79 (11th Cir.
1991)), and Munich’s two-week delay at this stage in
the proceedings is not comparable to cases in which the
Eleventh

Circuit

has

found

undue

delay,

see,

e.g.,

Campbell v. Emory Clinic, 166 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th
5

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 6 of 8

Cir.

1999)

(finding

undue

delay

where

“motions

for

leave to amend were filed more than one year after
discovery had ended, after dispositive motions had been
filed,

and

between

five-and-six

years

after

the

lawsuits were begun” and the facts upon which the new
claims were based were available when the complaints
were filed).
AMIC also argues that it would be unduly prejudiced
by Munich’s proposed amendments in light of the current
discovery plan.

See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 54) at 2–4.

While

will

the

court

consider

what

discovery

has

already been conducted and what additional discovery
may

be

required

by

additional

pleadings,

see, e.g.,

Carruthers v. BSA Advert., Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1218
(11th Cir. 2004) (affirming denial of motion for leave
to amend where discovery had been completed and the
proposed
discovery),
discovery

amendments
AMIC
would

would

has
be

not

require
shown

necessary
6

to

what
address

additional
additional
Munich’s

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 7 of 8

proposed additions.

Nor has AMIC explained why the

existing discovery plan and the remaining eight months
to conduct discovery would be inadequate.
Given

Rule

15(a)’s

liberal

standard,

the

close

relation between the proposed amendments and the facts
already at issue in this case, and AMIC’s failure to
demonstrate

a

substantial

reason

to

deny

Munich’s

motion, the court finds that Munich’s amendment should
be allowed.*
* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
* AMIC alternatively requests that the court order
the parties to conduct a new Rule 26(f) conference and
devise a new discovery plan. See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 54)
at 4–5.
To the extent AMIC seeks modification of the
existing scheduling order, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that, “A schedule may be
modified only for good cause.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4).
“This
good
cause
standard
precludes
modification unless the schedule cannot ‘be met despite
the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”
Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th
Cir. 1998) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment).
At this time,
AMIC has not concretely explained how it will not
reasonably be able to meet the existing discovery
schedule.
7

Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 8 of 8

(1)

Defendant

Munich

Reinsurance

America,

Inc.’s

motion for leave to amend (Doc. 51) is granted.
(2) Defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. is
allowed to file its amended answer, etc., by no later
than September 15, 2021.

Plaintiff Alabama Municipal

Insurance Corporation is allowed to file its response
by no later than September 29, 2021.
DONE, this the 8th day of September, 2021.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8