Paul Evert's RV Country, Inc. et al v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/6/2016 GRANTING 22 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

PAUL EVERT’S RV COUNTRY,
INC.; PAUL EVERT; and CHARLES
CURTIS,
Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 1:15-00124 WBS SKO
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE COUNTERCLAIM FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF

v.
UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES
1-25, inclusive,
Defendant.

19
20

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

21
22
23
24

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Paul Evert’s RV Country Inc., Paul Evert,

25

and Charles Curtis initiated this suit against defendant

26

Universal Underwriters Insurance Company alleging a breach of

27

defendant’s duty to defend and indemnify.

28
1

(Docket No. 1.)

On

1

June 18, 2015, the court issued a Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

2

Order that prohibited further amendments to the pleadings “except

3

with leave of court, good cause having been shown under Federal

4

Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).”

5

seeks leave to amend its answer so it may file a counterclaim for

6

declaratory relief.

7

(“Def.’s Mot.”) (Docket No. 22).)

8
9

(Docket No. 18.)

Defendant now

(Def.’s Mot. for Leave to File Countercl.

Here, the Scheduling Order controls and defendant must
meet the requirements of Rule 16(b).

A party seeking leave to

10

amend under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate “good cause.”

Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 16(b).

12

good cause for seeking leave to amend its answer and plaintiffs

13

will not be prejudiced by the filing of this counterclaim.

14

Defendant’s counterclaim does not expand the scope of the case or

15

greatly alter the nature of the litigation.

16

seeks a judicial declaration on defendant’s duty to defend and

17

responsibility for damages--issues that have been at the center

18

of this litigation from the beginning.

19

counterclaim will not cause any delay in the litigation as

20

discovery is still open, little discovery has yet been conducted,

21

and the pretrial conference and trial dates will remain

22

unchanged.

The court finds that defendant has established

To the contrary, it

In addition, defendant’s

23

Plaintiffs’ argument that amendment is futile because

24

the counterclaim is “redundant” of the causes of action already

25

asserted in plaintiffs’ Complaint would be better resolved on a

26

motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.

27

at 16, 21 (Docket No. 31).)

28

legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment using the same standard

(Pls.’ Opp’n

“While courts will determine the

2

1

as applied on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion . . . such issues are often

2

more appropriately raised in a motion to dismiss rather than in

3

an opposition to a motion for leave to amend.”

4

S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal.

5

2002).

6

SAES Getters

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

7

leave to file a counterclaim for declaratory relief (Docket No.

8

22) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

9

Dated:

April 6, 2016

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3