Thurston Foods, Inc. v. Wausau Business Insurance Company

Filing 148

ORDER granting 144 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 9/14/2017. (Gould, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
THURSTON FOODS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

3:15cv14 (WWE)

v.
WAUSAU BUSINESS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
In this action, plaintiff Thurston Foods seeks to recover benefits under a
commercial property insurance policy issued by defendant Wausaw Business
Insurance Company.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs that courts “should freely give
leave” to amend a complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As the
Supreme Court has held, “[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a
plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test
his claim on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). A district court
may deny leave for “good reason” such as futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue
prejudice to the opposing party, but “outright refusal to grant the leave without any
justifying reason for the denial is an abuse of discretion.” McCarthy v. Dun &
Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200-01 (2d Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff requests to amend the complaint to clarify the names of the three Safeco
companies doing business in Connecticut, which would then facilitate the defendant’s
ability to respond to a discovery request. Plaintiff has submitted a redlined version of
1

the proposed amended complaint. Upon review, the Court finds that good cause exists
to allow the amendment, which will not unduly prejudice defendant or delay this action.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Amend [doc. 144].
Plaintiff is instructed to efile the amended complaint within five days of this ruling’s filing
date.
Dated this __14th__ day of September, 2017, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/Warren W. Eginton_____________________
WARREN W. EGINTON
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2