Oakes et al v. United Home Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 47

OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) plfs' Betty Oakes and J.T. Oakes's 35 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; (2) def United Home Life Insurance Company's 31 MOTION TO DISMISS is DENIED with leave to renew; def Bankers Life and Casualty Company's 33 MOTION TO DISMISS is DENIED with leave to renew. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/8/15. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist).(djy, ) .

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BETTY OAKES and J. T.
OAKES,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED HOME LIFE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:15cv242-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs

Betty

Oakes

and

J.T.

Oakes

sued

defendants United Home Life Insurance Company, Bankers
Life

and

asserting

Casualty
fraud

and

Company,
willful

and

Daniel

deceit,

as

Burnett,
well

as

negligent and wanton hiring, supervision, training, and
monitoring.

Jurisdiction

is

proper

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C. §§ 1332 (diversity) and 1441 (removal).
This cause is before the court on (1) the Oakeses’
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and

(2) United Home’s and Bankers Life’s motions to dismiss
the Oakeses’ first amended complaint.

For the reasons

that follow, the leave-to-amend motion will be granted,
and the dismissal motions will be denied.

I.
May
entered

18,

2015:

requiring,

A

uniform

among

other

scheduling
things,

order

that

was

amended

pleadings must be filed by July 31.
July 27: The Oakeses filed a motion for leave to
file their first amended complaint to add new counts
against United Home and Bankers Life for negligent and
wanton hiring, supervision, training, and monitoring.
July

30:

After

the

court

granted

their

leave-to-amend motion, the Oakeses filed their first
amended complaint.
August

11:

United

Home

filed

the

now-pending

motion to dismiss the Oakeses’ new counts, contending
that, in their first amended complaint, the Oakeses had
not pleaded facts sufficient to state claims under Bell

2

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
August

13:

Bankers

Life

filed

the

now-pending

motion to dismiss on the ground similar that asserted
in United Home’s dismissal motion.
That same day, the Oakeses filed the now-pending
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint,
which, if allowed, would set forth additional factual
allegations

in

response

to

the

Twombly

and

Iqbal

contention asserted in United Home’s and Bankers Life’s
dismissal motions.

II.
United
Oakeses’

Home

motion

and
for

Bankers
leave

to

Life
file

contend
a

that

second

the

amended

complaint is untimely.
“Both Rules 15 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure facially guide the court’s decision whether
to allow an untimely amendment to the [pleadings].”

3

Nobles v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Servs., 303 F. Supp. 2d
1279, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (Thompson, J.).
Rule 15 states that, “The court should freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

However, when a party seeks leave to

amend after the scheduling-order deadline, the court
must also apply Rule 16, which states that, “A schedule
may

be

modified

judge’s consent.”

only

for

good

cause

and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

with

the

Rule 16’s

“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) (per curiam)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note).
In

this

case,

there

is

no

question

that

the

Oakeses’ failure (with their motion for leave to file
their second amended complaint) to meet the scheduling
order’s amended-pleadings deadline was not the result
of lack of diligence.

United Home and Bankers Life did

not raise (and, indeed, for all practical purposes,

4

probably could not have raised) their Twombly and Iqbal
argument in opposition to the first amended complaint
until

after

the

time-to-amend-pleadings

deadline

had

passed, and the Oakeses promptly sought to remedy the
problem with a proposed second amended complaint.

They

filed their motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, which would allege new factual details, a
mere two days after the Twombly and Iqbal argument was
first raised by United Home, and the same day it was
raised by Bankers Life.

Furthermore, United Home and

Bankers Life were aware of the new claims within the
time period provided by the uniform scheduling order
for amended pleadings.
unfairly

prejudiced

amendment.

by

As such, they would not be
the

Oakeses’

proposed

second

Therefore, because the Oakeses’ failure to

meet the scheduling-order deadline was not dilatory and
because

United

Home

and

Bankers

Life

would

not

be

unfairly prejudiced by the proposed second amendment,
there is sufficient good cause for this court to modify

5

the

scheduling

order

to

allow

the

proposed

second

amendment after the deadline.
Next, because the Oakeses have met their Rule 16
good-cause

burden,

the

court

turns

to

the

Rule

15

question: Does justice require that the proposed second
amendment be allowed?

Based on representations made by

the Oakeses during an on-the-record hearing on August
27, 2015, the court finds that the second amendment is
warranted.

As the Oakeses explained, with their first

amended complaint they added new claims, albeit close
to the scheduling-order deadline, based on information
that

was

newly

discovered.

After

United

Home

and

Bankers Life moved to dismiss on the Twombly and Iqbal
ground, the Oakeses promptly moved to amend their first
amended complaint with factual details that would be
responsive to United Home and Bankers Life’s
Because

United

Home

and

Bankers

Life

argument.

will

not

be

unfairly prejudiced by the proposed second amendment
and

because

amendment

is

likely

necessary

to

allow

pursuit of the new claims, the court finds that justice

6

requires that the Oakeses be allowed to continue to
prosecute their

new claims.

Accordingly, the court

will grant the Oakeses’ motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint under the Rule 15 standard.
Finally, because the Oakeses will be allowed to
file

their

proposed

second

amended

complaint

and

because this amendment is responsive to the Twombly and
Iqbal contention raised in United Home’s and Bankers
Life’s motions to dismiss, the dismissal motions will
be denied as moot, albeit with leave to renew should
United

Home

to-be-filed

and
second

Bankers

Life

believe

amended

complaint

is

that
due

to

the
be

dismissed as well.
* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) Plaintiffs Betty Oakes and J.T. Oakes’s motion
for

leave

to

file

second

(doc. no. 35) is granted.

7

amended

complaint

(2) Defendant United Home Life Insurance Company’s
motion to dismiss (doc. no. 31) is denied with
leave to renew.
(3) Defendant Bankers Life and Casualty Company’s
motion to dismiss (doc. no. 33) is denied with
leave to renew.
DONE, this the 8th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE