Estate of Charles Wasden et al v. Citizens Communications et al
ORDER granting 77 Motion to Amend Complaint; granting 85 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/11/2013. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ESTATE OF CHARLES WASDEN, by and
through Executrix Myrtlean Wasden, and
MYRTLEAN WASDEN, individually as the
beneficiary of the insurance policy
CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS, et al,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0002-KD-B
This action is before the Court on the motion for leave to amend complaint filed by
plaintiffs Estate of Charles Wasden and Myrtlean Wasden individually (doc. 77), defendant
Frontier Communications Corporation’s response in opposition and plaintiffs’ reply (docs. 77,
84, 86).1 Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion for leave to amend
Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to amend their complaint to add the Principal
Financial Group and the Principal Life Insurance Company as defendants and to add Counts Two
and Three. Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint contains Count One for “Recovery of
Benefits and Enforcement of Rights Under ERISA Pension Benefit Plan 29 USC §
1132(a)(1)(B)”, Count Two for a “204(g) Anti-Cutback Clam (29 USC § 1054)”, and Count
Three for “Wrongful Withholding of Plan Documents (29 USC § 1024)” against all defendants.
The Federal Rules state, in relevant part, that “a party may amend its pleading only with
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a response is GRANTED (doc. 85).
the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave” and that the “court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(2). Defendant Prudential Insurance
Company of America has not given its written consent. Defendant Citizens Communications
Corporation has filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion (doc. 84). Therefore, the Court must
determine whether justice requires granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Generally,
in the absence of any reason to deny the motion, such as undue prejudice to the non-movant,
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies on the part of
the movant, or futility, leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962). Overall, “there must be a substantial reason
to deny a motion to amend.” Laurie v. Ala. Ct. of Crim.App., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th
Although plaintiffs had knowledge of the 1991 letter from Prudential Mutual Life
Insurance Group as early as February 2013 and did not file their motion until the last day
possible under the terms of the Scheduling Order, the Court finds that the interests of justice
weigh in favor of allowing the amendment. See Borden, Inc. v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 772
F.2d 750, 757 (11th Cir. 1985) (“There is a strong policy embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and Rule 15 particularly, favoring the liberality of amendment.”); Dussouy v. Gulf
Coast Investment Co., 660 F.2d 594, 597 (5th Cir. 1981) (“The policy of the federal rules is to
permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent
litigation from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading.”).
Done and ordered this the 11th day of October 2013.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
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?