Burns et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

Filing 24

ORDER: For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Doc. No. 16 ) is hereby GRANTED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 2/10/17. (Rafferty, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------KEVIN M. BURNS and SHANNIN
BURNS,
Plaintiffs,

x
:
:
:
:
v.
:
:
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
:
COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE :
INSURANCE COMPANY,
:
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------- x

Case No. 3:16-cv-1817 (AWT)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to Amend the Complaint (Doc. No. 16) is hereby GRANTED.

The

plaintiffs shall docket their First Amended Complaint forthwith.
A complaint is identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(1) as a
pleading.

It is a pleading to which a responsive pleading, i.e.

an answer, is required.

See Rule 7(a)(2).

Rule 15(a)(1) has

different provisions for pleadings “to which a responsive pleading
is required,” see Rule 15(a)(1)(B), and other pleadings, see Rule
15(a)(1)(A).

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 15 recognize

this distinction:

“[A]mended Rule 15(a)(1) extends from 20 to 21

days the period to amend a pleading to which no responsive
pleading is allowed.”

Rule 15 2009 Advisory Committee Notes.

This point was perhaps clearer under the prior version of
Rule 15(a), which provided in pertinent part:

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend
its pleading once as a matter of course:
(A) before being served with a responsive pleading; or
(B) within 20 days after serving the pleading if a
responsive pleading is not allowed and the action is
not yet on the trial calendar.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (December 1, 2007).

There is no suggestion

in the 2009 Advisory Committee Notes that there was any intention
to revise Rule 15(a)(1) to function in the manner suggested by the
defense.
Moreover, under the reading of Rule 15(a)(1) contemplated by
the defense, the plaintiffs could file a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint (having missed a 21-day deadline for amending
as a matter of course); have that motion be denied by the court;
and then have the right to amend as a matter of course pursuant to
Rule 15(a)(1)(B) once the defense files either an answer or a
motion to dismiss, notwithstanding the fact that the court
previously denied leave to make the same amendment.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 10th day of February, 2017, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
/s/ AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge