Naser v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 37

ORDER DENYING 31 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS. Signed by Hon. Edward J. Davila on August 30, 2011. (ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

LOAY S. NASER
Plaintiff,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:10-4475 EJD (HRL)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
(Re: Docket No. 31)

16
17

On August 3, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file their Amended Answer and

18

Counterclaims to add counterclaims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The

19

motion is styled as an administrative motion and was not noticed for a hearing. On August 17,

20

2011, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion is not a

21

request for administrative relief that can be brought pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and must comply

22

with Civil L.R. 7-2.

23

Civil L.R. 7-11 states that “[t]he Court recognizes that during the course of case

24

proceedings a party may require a Court order with respect to miscellaneous administrative

25

matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the

26

assigned judge.” An administrative motion brought under Civil L.R. 7-11, compared to a motion

27
28

1
Case No.: 5:10-4475 EJD (HRL)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS

1

that complies with Civil L.R. 7-2, allows the non-moving party a shorter time-period and fewer

2

pages in which to oppose the motion and provides for no reply or oral argument.

3

A motion for leave to amend pleadings cannot be styled as an administrative motion under

4

Civil L.R. 7-11 because this matter is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. In this instance, Fed. R. Civ.

5

P. 15(a)(2) requires Defendants to seek leave of court because more than twenty-one days have

6

passed since Defendants served their Answer and Defendants do not have Plaintiff’s written

7

consent to amend. Defendants are aware of this requirement and of the governing federal rule, and

8

they cite Rule 15(a) in their motion. Thus, this motion must comply with Civil L.R. 7-2 1 and is

9

procedurally defective in its current form. Accordingly,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is DENIED without prejudice to their

11

bringing a motion that complies with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-2.

12

Dated:

13

_________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

A review of other motions for leave to amend answers to add counter-claims filed in this district
confirms that such motions typically comply with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-2 and are not
styled as administrative motions under Civil L.R. 7-11. See, e.g., Counter Motion for Leave to File
Counter Claim, Green Valley Corp. v. Caldo Oil Co., 09-CV-04028-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14,
2011), ECF No. 74; Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim, Juarez v. Jani-King of California, Inc.,
CIV. 09-3495 SC, (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2010), ECF No. 47; Motion for Leave To Amend Answer,
Phoenix Solutions, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., No. C 07-02112 MHP, (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2008),
ECF No. 121.
2
Case No.: 5:10-4475 EJD (HRL)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS