Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. St Paul Surplus Lines Insurance et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 25 30 Motions to Strike and Striking 22 Amended Complaint. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

11

Plaintiff,

12
v.
13
14
15

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE
COMPANY, LIBERTY SURPLUS
INSURANCE CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,

16
Defendants.

17
18
19

) Case No. 13-cv-03499-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
) STRIKE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("St.

20

Paul") and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation ("LSIC")

21

(collectively "Defendants") have filed motions to strike Plaintiff

22

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company's ("Plaintiff") first

23

amended complaint ("FAC").

24

briefed, ECF Nos. 27, 29, 31, 34, and appropriate for resolution

25

without oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

26

set forth below, the motions are GRANTED.

27
28

ECF Nos. 25, 30.

The motions are fully

For the reasons

Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 29, 2013.
1.

ECF No.

LSIC and St. Paul filed their answers on August 29, 2013 and

1

September 6, 2013, respectively.

2

2013, the parties filed a joint case management statement, in which

3

they stated: "The parties propose deadlines for amendments to

4

pleadings, if any, be set for December 13, 2013."

5

The Court has yet to adopt this deadline.

6

Plaintiff filed the FAC, adding a new defendant, Travelers Property

7

Casualty Company of America, and two new causes of action.

On November 8,

ECF No. 20 at 3.

On December 12, 2013,

Defendants argue that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

8
9

ECF Nos. 12, 15.

Procedure 15, Plaintiff should have either (1) amended its pleading

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

within 21 days after the filing of Defendants' answers, or (2)

11

sought Defendant's written consent or leave of the Court prior to

12

filing the FAC.

13

parties' joint case management statement, the parties agreed that

14

amended pleadings could be filed up to December 13, 2013.

15

Defendants reply that they merely agreed to a final deadline for

16

amendments, and did not waive their right to oppose amendments

17

under Rule 15.

Plaintiff responds that, as memorialized in the

The Court agrees with Defendants.

18

Rule 15 essentially

19

provides two methods for the pre-trial amendment of a pleading: (1)

20

a party may amend as a matter of course within 21 days after

21

serving the pleading or within 21 days after service of a

22

responsive pleading; or (2) with respect to all other amendments, a

23

party must obtain the written consent of the opposing party or the

24

court's leave.

25

fall into either category.

26

joint case management statement appears to set forth a proposed

27

final deadline for the amendment of pleadings, not a waiver of Rule

28

15.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2).

The FAC does not

Moreover, the relevant language in the

Even if the parties did agree to waive the requirements of

2

1
2

Rule 15, the Court never sanctioned such a waiver.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' pending motions to

3

strike and STRIKES Plaintiff's FAC.

Plaintiff may re-file the FAC

4

in accordance with Rule 15(a)(2).

5

that it must "freely give leave [to amend] when justice so

6

requires."

7

show bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to themselves, or futility

8

of amendment, the Court is inclined to grant a Rule 15 motion.

9

Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F. 3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004).

The Court reminds the parties

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Thus, unless Defendants can

The

United States District Court

10
For the Northern District of California

See

Court encourages the parties to work together to avoid further

11

unnecessary motion practice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

February 19, 2014

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3