Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.
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
INSURANCE CORPORATION, a
AMERICA, INC., a foreign
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.’s motion for leave to
parties call “treaties,” that Munich allegedly breached
by failing to pay certain reinsurance billings.
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
See Def.’s First Mot. for Leave to Amend
That motion was granted.
See Alabama Mun.
Ins. Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., 2021 WL
2392421 (M.D. Ala. 2021) (Thompson, J.).
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).
For the reasons discussed
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
Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 8
the court’s leave.
leave to amend.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
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
policy of liberal amendment.”
United States for Use &
Benefit of Krupp Steel Products, Inc. v. Aetna Ins.
Co., 831 F.2d 978, 983 (11th Cir. 1987).
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).
Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 8
“justice ... requires” granting Munich leave to amend
Munich’s counterclaim, and Munich’s proposed additions
parties’ rights and obligations under the reinsurance
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
See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 54) at 2–3.
AMIC fails to identify any delay that is undue.
filed its motion for leave to file a second amended
See Uniform Scheduling Order
Further, Munich asserts, and AMIC does not
Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 8
See Def.’s Mot. (Doc. 51)
before filing this motion.
at 3–4; see also Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 54) at 2–3.
amended answer and counterclaim reflected gamesmanship
or dilatory motive.
The Eleventh Circuit has noted
that “the mere passage of time, without more, is an
In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1109
Hester v. Int’l Union of
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
Campbell v. Emory Clinic, 166 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th
Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 6 of 8
leave to amend were filed more than one year after
discovery had ended, after dispositive motions had been
lawsuits were begun” and the facts upon which the new
claims were based were available when the complaints
AMIC also argues that it would be unduly prejudiced
by Munich’s proposed amendments in light of the current
See Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 54) at 2–4.
already been conducted and what additional discovery
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
Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 7 of 8
Nor has AMIC explained why the
existing discovery plan and the remaining eight months
to conduct discovery would be inadequate.
relation between the proposed amendments and the facts
already at issue in this case, and AMIC’s failure to
motion, the court finds that Munich’s amendment should
* * *
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)
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.
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
Case 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA Document 57 Filed 09/08/21 Page 8 of 8
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
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?